1985 PLP 510 (MLD)
HASSAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 510 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam titian, JJ |
| Parties | HASSAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 510 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 510 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam titian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 510 (MLD) (HASSAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Lal Khan Baluch for Petitioner.
- Malik Allah Yar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S.24--Election petition--Election Tribunal directing Returning Officer to recount votes and submit report--Objection to such direction- Contention of petitioner that Election Tribunal had no right to ask for recounting of votes from Returning Officer nor latter could file any report thereof to Election Tribunal, held, unjustified--Petitioner was entitled to raise all pleas before Election Tribunal including direction for recounting of votes or submission of report--Election Tribunal would take all those pleas into account and proceed and disposing of in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Lal Khan Baluch for Petitioner. Malik Allah Yar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1984. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J:- Instead of dealing with the miscellaneous application both the learned counsel stated that the main petition may as well be disposed of.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Election Tribunal had no right to ask for the recounting from the Returning Officer/ Assistant Commissioner nor could the latter file any report. Whatever had to be done on the election petition was to be done by the Election Tribunal itself.
3. The learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3 has submitted that the learned Election Tribunal has only asked for a report and whatever pleas the petitioner may have in relation to the process and disposal of the election petition, he can raise those before the learned Election Tribunal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to be quite obvious that whatever pleas the petitioner has in, regard to the processing and disposal pf the election petition by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner will lie entitled to take before him under the law. Therefore, there is no justification to declare the order of the learned Election Tribunal dated 24-10-1983 to be without lawful authority. Whatever the petitioner has to say he may say so before the Election p Tribunal and take all pleas including the direction for recounting or submission of the report or any other available under the law. The learned Election Tribunal will obviously take those into account and proceed with the election petition in accordance with law and dispose of the same accordingly. This petition is thus disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T. Order accordingly.