1984 PLP 2181 (CLC)
Ch. ABDUL HAMEED‑ — Petitioner Versus ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS‑ — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 2181 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. ABDUL HAMEED‑ — Petitioner Versus ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS‑ — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑, JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 2181 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑, JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 2181 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 2181 (CLC) (Ch. ABDUL HAMEED‑ — Petitioner Versus ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
- Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Respondent No. 4.
- Date of hearing : 7th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 15‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Election Authority‑Jurisdiction of‑Nomination dispute referred by Deputy Commissioner as an Appellate Authority to Election Authority‑Election Authority with consent of parties allowing both candidates to contest election and then refer dispute to Appellate Authority for decision‑Subsequently Appellate Authority refusing permission to petitioner to participate in election for office of Chairman Town Committee on ground that result had been with held on direction of Election Authority pending decision on nomina tion papers‑Petitioner challenging same in writ petition on ground that order of Election Authority was not being implemented -Held: Both parties desired implementation of order of Election Authority which Appellate Authority was bound in law to comply Directions issued accordingly. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑This petition has been filed on the grievance that the order of the Election Authority passed inter‑parties between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is not being implemented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala acting as an Appellate Authority against the rejection of nomination papers.
2. The brief facts are that the nomination dispute was referred by the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority to the Election Authority, Punjab. The Election Authority by his order, dated 26th September, 1983 held that both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 be allowed to contest the election and the dispute between the parties be remitted to the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala for decision afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 consented to this course.
3. The operative order of the Election Authority is couched in para. 9 which reads; "Meanwhile both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are allowed to contest the election but the result of election shall not be declared if any of the two parties viz. the petitioner or respondent No. 3 secures highest number of votes. In such an event the result of election shall be declared subject to the decision of the Appellate Authority as to the validity of the nomination paper of the present contesting parties viz. the petitioner and respondent No. 3." It may be observed at this stage that none of the parties challenged the order of the Election Authority before a superior forum or Court. That order has attained finality in law. After the remand of the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner gave an application for permission to participate in the election of the office of Chairman, Town Committee, Ghakbar. This application was refused by the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority after holding that the result had been withheld on the direction of the Appellate Authority pending confirmation of the signatures of the seconder. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 5th November, 1983 on the grievance that the order of the Election Authority is not being implemented.
4. Respondent No. 4 is present in person and is also represented by his learned counsel Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4.
6. It is a common ground between the parties that they desire the implementation of the order of the Election Authority. That being the position, we can do no better than to direct the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority to implement the order of the Election Authority who is otherwise obliged by law so to do. Both the parties stated before us that the appeal against the rejection of nomination papers is fixed for today before the Deputy Commissioner for decision. We direct the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter today and it that cannot be done since the composition of the Union Council will not be complete, therefore, he should postpone the election of the Chairman till after the decision in this appeal to ensure conformity with law as the petitioner states that he is a candidate for the Chairmanship. M. B. A . Order accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 7th November, 1983. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑This petition has been filed on the grievance that the order of the Election Authority passed inter‑parties between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is not being implemented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala acting as an Appellate Authority against the rejection of nomination papers.
2. The brief facts are that the nomination dispute was referred by the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority to the Election Authority, Punjab. The Election Authority by his order, dated 26th September, 1983 held that both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 be allowed to contest the election and the dispute between the parties be remitted to the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala for decision afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 consented to this course.
3. The operative order of the Election Authority is couched in para. 9 which reads; "Meanwhile both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are allowed to contest the election but the result of election shall not be declared if any of the two parties viz. the petitioner or respondent No. 3 secures highest number of votes. In such an event the result of election shall be declared subject to the decision of the Appellate Authority as to the validity of the nomination paper of the present contesting parties viz. the petitioner and respondent No. 3." It may be observed at this stage that none of the parties challenged the order of the Election Authority before a superior forum or Court. That order has attained finality in law. After the remand of the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner gave an application for permission to participate in the election of the office of Chairman, Town Committee, Ghakbar. This application was refused by the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority after holding that the result had been withheld on the direction of the Appellate Authority pending confirmation of the signatures of the seconder. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 5th November, 1983 on the grievance that the order of the Election Authority is not being implemented.
4. Respondent No. 4 is present in person and is also represented by his learned counsel Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4.
6. It is a common ground between the parties that they desire the implementation of the order of the Election Authority. That being the position, we can do no better than to direct the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority to implement the order of the Election Authority who is otherwise obliged by law so to do. Both the parties stated before us that the appeal against the rejection of nomination papers is fixed for today before the Deputy Commissioner for decision. We direct the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter today and it that cannot be done since the composition of the Union Council will not be complete, therefore, he should postpone the election of the Chairman till after the decision in this appeal to ensure conformity with law as the petitioner states that he is a candidate for the Chairmanship. M. B. A . Order accordingly.