1981 PLP 1332 (CLC)
IRSHAD AHMED‑Petitioner Versus SHAM MUHAMMAD 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1332 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zafar Hussain Mirza and Z. C. Valliani, JJ |
| Parties | IRSHAD AHMED‑Petitioner Versus SHAM MUHAMMAD 5 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Sind Local Council (Election.) Rules, 1979‑, (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑, (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1332 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sind Local Council (Election.) Rules, 1979‑, (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑, (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑, (a) Sind Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1332 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zafar Hussain Mirza and Z. C. Valliani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1332 (CLC) (IRSHAD AHMED‑Petitioner Versus SHAM MUHAMMAD 5 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalilur Rehman for Petitioner.
- Ghiasuddin Baloch for Respondent No. 1.
- Dates of hearing : 12th and 13th January, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ R. 40 (4), cl. (c) (ii)‑‑Excessive ink‑Marking ballot‑paper with Excessive ink on petitioner's symbol on ballot paper‑No allegation or evidence of any manipulation against petitioner‑Held: Tribunal arrived at conclusion of manipulation on part of petitioner without any rational basis, and in arbitrary manner. ‑‑‑‑ R. 40 (4), cl. (c) (i)‑.Interpretation‑On petitioner's ballot‑paper, other stamp marks also appearing on some redundant symbols not allocated to any candidate‑‑Tribunal not treating such ballot papers as valid‑Narrow interpretation placed upon sub‑clause (ii) of cl. (c) of sub‑rule (4) of r. 4) that any other mark besides official mark and prescribed mark would render ballot‑paper invalid held, not acceptable ‑Held further, if ballot‑paper unambiguously reveals intention of elector, presence of other marks will not render vote invalid and it will be counted in favour of candidate for whom it appears to have been cast.‑[Interpretation of statutes]. The Law of Elections and Election Petitions in India by Nanak Chand Pandit and Gyan Chand Mathur, 2nd Edn. (1957), p. 134; Rogers on Elections, Vol. 11, 20th Edn., p. 101. 104 ; Woodward v. Sorsons (1875) L R 10 C P ; Phillips v. Goft (1886) 17 Q B D 805 and Abdul Razik Khan v. Abdul Aziz Khan P L D 1975 Jour. 41 ref. ‑‑ Art. 199‑Question of fact‑Determination of ‑ Five ballot papers marked with rubber stamp different from prescribed one Respondent No. 1 contending such ballot‑papers not valid‑No such issue raised before Tribunal‑ No opportunity provided to petitioner to contest issue and Tribunal not giving any finding on it‑Held, respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to support decision of Tribunal on grounds other than ones on which Tribunal rejected ballot‑papers‑ Held further, question raised being question of fact and inquiry to determine cannot be embarked in Constitu tional jurisdiction. ‑‑ Art. 199‑Other adequate remedy‑Petitioner having no remedy under the statute against impugned order passed by Tribunal‑Held, jurisdiction under Art. 199 clearly available to petitioner. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Nawaz 1980 C I. C 952 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ R. 40 (4), cl. (c) (i)‑.Interpretation‑On petitioner's ballot‑paper, other stamp marks also appearing on some redundant symbols not allocated to any candidate‑‑Tribunal not treating such ballot papers as valid‑Narrow interpretation placed upon sub‑clause (ii) of cl. (c) of sub‑rule (4) of r. 4) that any other mark besides official mark and prescribed mark would render ballot‑paper invalid held, not acceptable ‑Held further, if ballot‑paper unambiguously reveals intention of elector, presence of other marks will not render vote invalid and it will be counted in favour of candidate for whom it appears to have been cast.‑[Interpretation of statutes]. The Law of Elections and Election Petitions in India by Nanak Chand Pandit and Gyan Chand Mathur, 2nd Edn. (1957), p. 134; Rogers on Elections, Vol. 11, 20th Edn., p. 101. 104 ; Woodward v. Sorsons (1875) L R 10 C P ; Phillips v. Goft (1886) 17 Q B D 805 and Abdul Razik Khan v. Abdul Aziz Khan P L D 1975 Jour. 41 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 199‑Question of fact‑Determination of ‑ Five ballot papers marked with rubber stamp different from prescribed one Respondent No. 1 contending such ballot‑papers not valid‑No such issue raised before Tribunal‑ No opportunity provided to petitioner to contest issue and Tribunal not giving any finding on it‑Held, respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to support decision of Tribunal on grounds other than ones on which Tribunal rejected ballot‑papers‑ Held further, question raised being question of fact and inquiry to determine cannot be embarked in Constitu tional jurisdiction. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 199‑Other adequate remedy‑Petitioner having no remedy under the statute against impugned order passed by Tribunal‑Held, jurisdiction under Art. 199 clearly available to petitioner. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Nawaz 1980 C I. C 952 distinguished. Khalilur Rehman for Petitioner. Ghiasuddin Baloch for Respondent No.