1983 PLP 615 (SCMR)
MULAZIM HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 615 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MULAZIM HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 615 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 615 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 615 (SCMR) (MULAZIM HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Iqbal Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Zamir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan with Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd December, 1982.
- Sh. Zamir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan with Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 29th November, 1982 in W, P, Nos. 500/81/Rwp, and 2724/81/Lcr). - Rr. 13 & 14-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Petition filed in High Court challenging decision of Election Tribunal urging that Tribunal should have applied r. 13 declaring whole election void High Court declaring election void--Petitioner, himself, held, cannot attack order of High Court as suffering from illegality or infirmity-- Leave to appeal refused under circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 29th November, 1982 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 500/81/Rwp. and 2724/LAH.
2. Petitioner Mulazim Hussain and three others namely Abdul Hakim. Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yaqoob contested election of Union Council Basharat in the seat of Electoral Unit Sidhandi Parera on 25‑9‑1974. Petitioner who secured 207 votes was declared elected while Abdul Hakim, got the next highest number of votes.
3. Abdul Hakim, respondent No. 2, filed an Election Petition on the ground that there were marks on the ballot papers of the petitioner which were pointed out to the Presiding Officer yet these votes were counted illegally in favour of the petitioner. The Election Tribunal, after hearing the parties and recording the evidence, fund that there was some number ing varying from each other on each ballot paper in column No. 2 which was meant for the number and name of the Electoral Unit, and treated. these marks to be an identification mark violative of secrecy of ballot and held election of petitioner void and respondent Abdul Hakim was declared successful vide order dated 25‑5‑1981.
4. Petitioner challenged this decision of the learned Election Tribunal through Writ Petition 2724/61 which was accepted by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 29‑11‑1982.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned High Court Judge while declaring the election, as a whole void did not appreciate that the writing or mentioning of any number of ballot paper was neither violative of the secrecy of the ballot nor was a non‑compliance of the provisions of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979 or rules made there under, therefore, for irregularity, if any, the election as a whole could not be declared void. The argument of the learned counsel is devoid of any legal substance. The petition was filed in the High Court by the petitioner himself challenging the decision of the Election Tribunal and it wall urged in the petition that instead of applying rule 14 the learned Tribunal should have applied rule 13 and should have declared the entire election as A void. Thus, it was held by the learned High Court Judge that the election) was void as a whole. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the peti tioner now to say that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity, and it does not call for any interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.