2001 PLP 864 (MLD)
LIAQAT ALI RANJHA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 864 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI RANJHA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 864 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 864 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 864 (MLD) (LIAQAT ALI RANJHA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Mohyuddin Qazi for Petitioners.
- Khalifa Shujaat Amin for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance (V of 2000)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.14‑‑‑Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2000, R.18(4)‑‑ Election for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Nomination papers tiled by candidates were accepted by Returning Officer but‑on appeal, District Returning Officer rejected papers on the ground that candidates who had been declared "Ghair Ameen" by Courts, could not be allowed to contest the election‑‑‑Appeal before District Returning Officer though was incompetent, but candidates who were adjudged to be "Ghair Ameen" by the High Court and Supreme Court, their nomination papers were rightly rejected. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.l99‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction was not to be exercised in aid of injustice and‑ to perpetuate the illegality. Ch. Muhammad Jefiangir Wahla, A.A.G. (on Court's call).
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.l99‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction was not to be exercised in aid of injustice and‑ to perpetuate the illegality. Dr. Mohyuddin Qazi for Petitioners. Khalifa Shujaat Amin for Respondent No.2. Ch. Muhammad Jefiangir Wahla, A.A.G. (on Court's call). ORDER. The petitioners feel aggrieved of the rejection of their forms to contest election to the seats of Nazim, and Naib Nazim, U.C. Ne.44 (Bhowa Hassan), Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahauddin. The nomination papers were accepted by the learned Returning Officer on 3‑3‑2001. However, an appeal filed by respondent No.2 was allowed by the learned District Returning Officer, Mandi Bahauddin. The reason stated by the learned District Returning Officer in his order, dated 10‑3‑2001 is that petitioner No. l had been declared to be Ghair Ameen by this Court as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution cannot be imported into the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000 and the Rules, framed thereunder. Further contends that the appeal tiled by respondent No.2 before the learned District Returning Officer was not competent in view of the provisions of Rule 18(4) of the said Rules. Learned counsel for the private respondent has supported the impugned order of the learned District Returning Officer.
3. I have gone through the record as also the copies of the judgment dated 18‑5‑1998 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding Civil Petition No.476 of 1998 and also the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.843 of 1998 on 4‑5‑1998 which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. There is no matter of doubt that this Court as also the apex Court of the country have declared the petitioners to be Ghair Ameen. I confronted the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether he is trying to argue that the said Ordinance and the. Rules permit a Ghair Ameen to contest election. The answer obviously is in the negative. So far as the said second contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the said Rule 18(4) on a plaint reading does support his contention. However, it is equally well‑settled that the writ p jurisdiction is not to be exercised in aid of injustice and to perpetuate the illegality. I am not, therefore, inclined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./L‑16/L Petition dismissed