1993CLC281 (PLP)
Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. YAQOOB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993CLC281 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. YAQOOB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993CLC281 (PLP)?
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 1993CLC281 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993CLC281 (PLP) (Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. YAQOOB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Ghani Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Rr. 5(2) & 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Disposal of miscellaneous applications during pendency of Election petition‑‑‑Petitioner's application before Election Tribunal seeking dismissal of Election petition filed against him on the ground that respondent having sought more than one reliefs in such petition same merited dismissal, was dismissed‑‑‑Subsequently petitioner's other application based upon premises that reliefs claimed by respondent being more than one, separate security should have been deposited by him in respect of every relief, was also rejected‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Orders passed by Election Tribunal on ,applications of petitioner during pendency of Election petition did not have the effect of disposing of the whole case‑‑‑No interference was called for in impugned orders in exercise of discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction at the stage when Election petition was still pending adjudication‑‑‑Petitioner could, however, if so advised, challenge impugned orders alongwith final order if it went against him‑‑‑Contention of petitioner that respondent having sought more reliefs than one, his Election petition was liable to dismissal had no force‑‑‑Rule 9, Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, being not absolute but discretionary in nature, if there was any violation of R.5(2) of the Rules viz. (seeking more reliefs than one in Election petition) Election Tribunal was not obliged to dismiss election petition‑‑‑In one Election petition even if more reliefs have been sought, one security was required to be deposited‑‑‑Constitutional petition against impugned orders of Court was not maintainable in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
2. An objection was raised by the petitioner by filing an application under Rule 9 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 that the election petition was not maintainable in view of rule 5(2) of the said Rules, according to which only one relief can be claimed by the petitioner in the election petition. This application was, however, rejected by the learned Additional District Judge/Election Tribunal on 24‑3‑1992.
3. Petitioner No.l, instead of challenging that order any further again applied to the Election Tribunal for dismissal of the election petition for violation of rule 3 of the said Rules, which required deposit of security. The application was based upon the premises that as the reliefs claimed by respondent No‑1 are more than one, separate security should have been deposited by him in respect of every relief. This application has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge/Election Tribunal on 18‑6‑1992. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to rule 5 of the said Rules, in his election petition, respondent No.l could claim only one relief and by asking for more, he has violated the said rule and as such, his election petition was liable to be dismissed. In the alternative, it was argued that for each relief, respondent No.l is liable to deposit separate security.
5. An election petition filed by respondent No.l is still pending adjudication before the Election Tribunal and the orders passed by him on the two applications filed by petitioner No.l do not have the effect of disposing of the whole case. I am not inclined in the exercise of the discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in this matter at this stage. The petitioner may, if so advised, challenge the impugned orders alongwith the final order if it goes against him.
6. Even otherwise, prima facie there appears to be no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as respondent No.l has asked for more than one reliefs, his petition was liable to be dismissed.
7. Rule 9 is not absolute but is discretionary in nature and even if there is violation of rule 5(2), the Election Tribunal is not obliged to dismiss the election petition.
8. As regards the other contention, suffice it to say, that as one election petition has been filed, one security was required to be deposited. This petition is dismissed in limine. AA./M‑728/L Petition dismissed.