P L D 2006 Lahore 22 (PLP)
FARRUKH HUSSAIN KHAN DAHA and another — Appellants Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Secretary and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Lahore 22 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARRUKH HUSSAIN KHAN DAHA and another — Appellants Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Secretary and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Lahore 22 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Lahore 22 (PLP)?
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: P L D 2006 Lahore 22 (PLP) (FARRUKH HUSSAIN KHAN DAHA and another — Appellants Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Secretary and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
R. 36(6)(2)
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Re-counting of votes
Order of Election Commission of Pakistan directing re-counting was passed without hearing respondents who challenged the order. through constitutional petition and succeeded
Appellants had contended that Election Commission having powers under provisions of R.36(6)(2) of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 could validly direct for re-counting
Re-counting order was passed by Election Commission without hearing the other side
No one should be condemned unheard and any order passed in violation of rule of natural justice, was void and no superstructure could be built thereon
Neither the rule of Locus Poenitentiae nor that of estoppel was applicable in the case
Appellants, however had the remedy before Election Tribunal by filing an Election Petition
No interference in Intra-Court Appeal was called for.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--The facts of the case are duly narrated in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber. The order of the Election Commission of Pakistan directing the re-counting was passed without hearing respondents Nos.4 and 5, who challenged the said order through Writ Petition No.5288 of 2005 and succeeded.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the Election Commission of Pakistan has the powers under the provisions of rule 36 (6) (2) of the Punjab Local. Government Election Rules 2005, and resultantly, could validly direct for the re-counting; it is further submitted that respondents Nos.4 and 5, have duly participated in the re-counting process and after having lost in the re-counting, could not challenge the order on account of the estoppel and also that because the order had been acted upon, therefore, the rule of locus poenitentiae was duly attracted. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed upon the cases reported as Mushtaq Ahmed, v. Atta Muhammad (2002 CLC 409) and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman v. Inayat Rasool (2003 SCMR 1128).
2. We .have heard leaned counsel for the petitioners: Without going into the question, whether the Election Commission has or otherwise, the jurisdiction to direct for the re-counting but confining ourselves to the validity of the such order, it is undisputed fact that the re-counting order was passed by the Election Commission without hearing the other side. It is settled law that no one shall be condemned unheard and any order passed in violation of the rule of natural justice, is void and therefore, no superstructure can be built thereupon, resultantly, neither the rules of locus poenitentiae nor the estoppel are applicable to the instant case. Anyhow, the appellants have the remedy before the Election Tribunal by filing an election petition, as has been held by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, therefore, no interference in the Intra-Court appeal is called for. Dismissed. H.B.T./F-119/L Intra-Court Appeal dismissed.