1991 PLP 782 (SCMR)
NASIR ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 782 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and |
| Parties | NASIR ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 782 (SCMR)?
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 1991 PLP 782 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 782 (SCMR) (NASIR ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 5-11-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 6255 of 1989).
S. 17 (1)(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Question whether in facts and circumstances of case, Punjab Local Council Election Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide case under S. 17(1) of Ordinance as had been held by Chairman of Authority or whether it fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S. 17 as held by High Court was a matter of considerable delicacy-- Judgments relied upon in support of view taken by Chairman had been found to be distinguishable by High Court while according to petitioners their ratio was fully applicable
Question requiring further consideration, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The question whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Punjab Local Council Election Authority had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide this case under section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as has been held by the Chairman of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority (Mehboob Ahmed, J.) or whether it fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as held by the Division Bench of the High Court is a matter of considerable delicacy. The judgments of this Court relied upon in support of the view taken by the learned Chairman of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority have been found to be distinguishable by the learned Division Bench of the High Court while according to the petitioners their ratio was fully applicable. The question clearly requires further consideration. Leave granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents if any and placed for hearing within two months, if possible. Meanwhile, the interim order dated 13‑11‑1989 will continue in operation. H.B.T./N‑243/S Leave granted.