CLC 1984

1984 PLP 1320 (CLC)

INAYATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus Mian GHULAM AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS ‑ Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 1180 of 1984, decided on 25th March, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1984 PLP 1320 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ
Parties INAYATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus Mian GHULAM AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS ‑ Respondents
Primary Law ORDER, Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1320 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1320 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1320 (CLC) (INAYATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus Mian GHULAM AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS ‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

ORDER Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑

Representation

  • Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑ S. 21(1)(e) & (f)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Election‑Town Committee‑Candidate retiring from Pro vincial Government service and two years period from retirement not elapsed‑Candidate, held, disqualified from being elected as member of Town Committee and his case hit by clause (e) of sub section (1) of S.

21. ABJUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑The petitioner was elected as a member of Town Committee, Gakhar from Ward No.

6. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition saying that the petitioner was not entitled to hold office because he had recently retired from Government service and a period of two years had not elapsed. The election petition was accepted by the learned Election Tribunal vide order, dated 21st March, 1984. This has been challenged through the present Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the case of the petitioner falls under clause (f) of subsection (1) of sec tion 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which provides that a person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council :‑ (a) . ... ... ... ... ... (b) (c) ... ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... (e) .. ... ... ... ... (f) if he for the time being is disqualified for membership of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force Provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable to :‑ (i) ..'. ... ... ... ... ... (2) a person who has resigned or has been retired or removed, other wise than by way of punishment, from service of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or a local authority or an autonomous body. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has retired not by way of punishment and, therefore, is saved by the last proviso to clause (f). The learned counsel has also referred to a decision in Writ Petition No. 4439 of 1983, decided on 23rd October, 1983.

3. A perusal of section 21 would show that its subsection (1) lays down that a person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council :‑ (a) ... ... ... ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... ... ... (e) if be is a salaried official of Federal or Provincial Government or of a Public or Statutory Corporation, a local council or other local authority and in case such an official has retired, a period of two years has not elapsed since his retirement." The petitioner is directly hit by this provision and there is no need to go to clause (f). A perusal of the case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner would show that the last bit of the sentence in clause (e) under lined above by us was not brought to the notice of the Court which had come by way of an amendment on 16th August, 1983. Learned counsel also submitted that clause (e) relates to 'salaried official' of the Federal or Provincial Government and an Explanation has been added about the salaried officials and the petitioner does not fall there under. It is besides the point. Salaried officials were one class of people who were disqualified to be members of the local council. They were salaried officials while they were in service. After retirement, the provision relevant is the last bit of clause (e) underlined above. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that clauses (e) and (f) should be read together and it may be inferred that since petitioner's case falls under the proviso to clause (j), therefore, he is not hit by clause (e). The contention has no force. If the provision of clause (e) is clear and covers the case of the petitioner, there is no need to go an further.

4. In view of what has been stated above since the petitioner retired from Provincial Government service of Police Department as Head Con stable, on 13th December, 1982, he was disqualified to contest the, election held, on 28th September, 1983 as obviously two years period had not elapsed. The order of the learned Election Tribunal calls for no interference, there fore, the petition is dismissed. M. Y. H Petition dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

(e) .. ... ... ... ... (f) if he for the time being is disqualified for membership of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force Provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable to :‑ (i) ..'. ... ... ... ... ... (2) a person who has resigned or has been retired or removed, other wise than by way of punishment, from service of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or a local authority or an autonomous body. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has retired not by way of punishment and, therefore, is saved by the last proviso to clause (f). The learned counsel has also referred to a decision in Writ Petition No. 4439 of 1983, decided on 23rd October, 1983.

3. A perusal of section 21 would show that its subsection (1) lays down that a person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council :‑ (a) ... ... ... ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... ... ... (e) if be is a salaried official of Federal or Provincial Government or of a Public or Statutory Corporation, a local council or other local authority and in case such an official has retired, a period of two years has not elapsed since his retirement." The petitioner is directly hit by this provision and there is no need to go to clause (f). A perusal of the case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner would show that the last bit of the sentence in clause (e) under lined above by us was not brought to the notice of the Court which had come by way of an amendment on 16th August, 1983. Learned counsel also submitted that clause (e) relates to 'salaried official' of the Federal or Provincial Government and an Explanation has been added about the salaried officials and the petitioner does not fall there under. It is besides the point. Salaried officials were one class of people who were disqualified to be members of the local council. They were salaried officials while they were in service. After retirement, the provision relevant is the last bit of clause (e) underlined above. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that clauses (e) and (f) should be read together and it may be inferred that since petitioner's case falls under the proviso to clause (j), therefore, he is not hit by clause (e). The contention has no force. If the provision of clause (e) is clear and covers the case of the petitioner, there is no need to go an further.

4. In view of what has been stated above since the petitioner retired from Provincial Government service of Police Department as Head Con stable, on 13th December, 1982, he was disqualified to contest the, election held, on 28th September, 1983 as obviously two years period had not elapsed. The order of the learned Election Tribunal calls for no interference, there fore, the petition is dismissed. M. Y. H Petition dismissed.