Legal Term
Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference
Representation of the people
Representation of the people legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
2013 PLD 675 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Judicial Precedent
Preamble & S. 108Constitution of Pakistan, Preamble & Art.224Bye-electionsExpense and wastage of fundsRepresentation of the people
Argument that bye-elections would result in wastage of funds could not be held over and above the constitutional principle of representation of the people in the Assemblies through their representatives, which was an essential characteristic of a Republic and could not be compromised.
How to cite this page:
"Representation of the people", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942605
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Representation of the people"
SCMR
1988
Constitutional Petition No.2-R of 1988, decided on 2nd October, 1988.
1988 S C M R 1986
Mrs. BENAZIR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents
Court: ---S.21, as amended by Representation of the People (.amendment) Ordinance (II of 1985) and Representation, of the People (Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1985) --Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, R.9 (2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 17(2) & 184(3)--Constitutional petition--Provisions of S.21 of the Act (as amended) are violative of Fundamental Rights contained in Art 17(2) of the Constitution in so far as they fail to recognize the existence and participation of Political Parties in the process of elections, particularly in the matter of allocation of symbols and, are for that reason void to that extent--Political Parties, therefore, 5h1) 1 tie entitled to avail of the provisions of R.9(2), Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 which empower the election Commission to allot any of the prescribed symbols to a political( party or a combination of two or more political parties who Have agreed to put up joint candidates for elections--Every political ,party, snail be eligible to-participate in the elections to every seat in the National and Provincial Assemblies scheduled to be held on the 16th November, 1988--Petition dismissed--Reasons to be recorded. later.
SCMR
2016
Civil Appeal No. 1628 of 2014, decided on 9th May, 2016.
2016 S C M R 1420
Ms. SHAMUNA BADSHAH QAISARANI — Appellant Versus Khuwaja MUHAMMAD DAWOOD and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLC
2007
merits---Application was accompanied by affidavit of petitioner and his counsel---Respondent raised objection to competency of application for restoration on ground that there was no provision in Representation of the People Act, 1976 for restoration of election petition dismissed in default and that even an application under S.151, C.P.C. did not lie---Reply of respondent was also supported by his counter affidavit--- Petitioner argued that when there was no specific prohibition to adopt any procedure, then procedure prescribed by C.P.C. could be followed and that law favoured adjudication of matters on merits---Validity---Scope and ambit of powers of Election Tribunal was to be discovered from provisions of relevant law constituting the same---Distinction between "Court" and "Tribunal" was also not to be overlooked--Provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1976, in the present case, under which Election Tribunal functioned had to be given primacy---Under S.62 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, the procedure to be followed by Election Tribunal was the one which was "laid down by Election Commission"---Notification dated 17-3-1985 issued by Election Commission of Pakistan had prescribed procedure for trial of election petitions---No provision in Representation of the People Act, 1976, had enabled or empowered Election Tribunal to set aside order of dismissal in default or restore petition once it had been dismissed under S.76 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976---Section 64 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, provided that Election Tribunal was to have all powers of a civil court, trying a suit under C.P.C., yet some specific provisions had been made by legislature in its wisdom in Representation of the People Act, 1976---Section 76 of the Act, specifically empowered Election Tribunal to dismiss petition for default and this was despite the fact that O. IX of C.P.C. empowered civil court to dismiss a suit for default and take proceedings ex parte against absenting party and also to restore suit and set aside ex parte orders/decrees on showing sufficient cause---Enactment of S.76 of the Act, was thus clearly a conscious departure from procedure prescribed by C.P.C. otherwise there would have been no need to specifically empower Election Tribunal to dismiss a petition for default as envisaged by S.76 of the Act---Election Tribunal did not ipso facto become a civil court by virtue of provision of S.64 of the Act---Amendment made in subsection (1) of S.62 of the Act, vide Notification dated 17-3-1985 (laying down procedure for trial of election petitions) was also indicative of the same intention of legislature viz. that certain procedure was specifically laid down to be followed by Election Tribunal and some specific powers were also conferred on it---Election Tribunal had special status under the Act, which being creation of such special law was to exercise only such powers of that law---Election Tribunal while functioning under special law could not claim to have nor could exercise any power, inherent or otherwise, except to the extent conferred upon it by law---By empowering Election Tribunal to dismiss petition for default of appearance and in making no provision for its restoration, the intention had been made absolutely clear that order of Election Tribunal became final as there was no power of review even given to the Tribunal---By enacting special provisions in Representation of the People Act, 1976, in form of S.76 empowering Election Tribunal to dismiss a petition for default, the legislature had clearly expressed its intention that Election Tribunal had the power to dismiss petition for such default but no power was given to it to set aside or recall such an order---Power of review could only be exercised when so conferred by relevant statute and it did not inhere in Election Tribunal merely because of its existence---Special provisions were made in Representation of the People Act, 1976, so as to enhance powers of the Tribunal and in their presence the general procedure mentioned in C.P.C. was not to be applicable on strength of principle that express mention of one excluded the other---Mention of one (power to dismiss petition for default) and omission of provision for restoration was intentional and thus Will of law-maker was to be given effect--Election Tribunal was not empowered to either set aside or review its order---Application for restoration of election petition was not maintainable, hence, the same was dismissed
2007 C L C 610
ASIF NAWAZ FATIANA — Petitioner Versus WALAYAT SHAH and others — Respondents
Court: Election Tribunal Punjab
CLC
1988
Election Petition No. 5 of 1985, dated 15th October, 1987.
1988 C L C 756
RAMCHOREDAS‑‑Petitioner Versus BHAGWANDAS and 31 others‑‑Respondents
Court: Election Tribunal Sind
PLD
1965
Civil Appeal No. 26‑D of 1964, decided on 9th December 1964.
P L D 1965 Supreme Court 157
SAYEEDUR RAHMAN‑Appellant Versus (1) CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, DACCA,
Court: (b) Representation of the People (Repeal) Act (XXIII of 1963), S. 2 (1) (2) read with S. 116, Representation of the People Act (XXXI of 1957)‑Bar against election of Government contractor to Provincial Assembly imposed by S. 116, Representation of the People Act (XXXI of 1957) removed by S. 2, Representation of the People (Repeal) Act (XXIII of 1963)‑Removal of bar declared by repealing Act to be retrospective in operation‑Repealing Act coming into force during pendency of appellant's appeal in Supreme Court‑Appellant, held, can take advantage of removal of bar Appeal‑Court becomes seized of whole case after admission of appeal‑The State v. Dosso and another P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 533; Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Mehdi Ali Khan and others P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 387 ; Election Commis sioner, Pakistan v. Sajjad Ali Khan P L D 1960 S C 235 ; Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and others v. Keshwar Lal Chubhuri and others A I R 1941 F C 5 and Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh A I R 1939 F C 74 rel. ; Mukherjee v. Mst. Ram Ratan Kuer 63 I A 47 and Badrul Haque Khan v. The Election Tribunal; Dacca and others P 4 D 1963 S C 704 considered.
PLD
1965
First Appeal From Original Order No. 140 of 1963, decided on 31st July 1964.
P L D 1965 Dacca 506
JAMALUS SATTAR‑Appellants Versus BADRUL HAQ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: (e) Settlement of Disputes (First Elections) Order President's Order No. 13 of 1962,
CLC
2009
2009-July-17
2009 C L C 1302
Lala SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF CHOHAN and 10 others — Respondents
Court: Punjab Election Tribunal
MLD
2003
2002-September-16
2003 M L D 1089
MUDASSAR QAYYUM NAHRA — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 10 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore
CLC
2011
2010-September-6
2011 C L C 25
SHEHZAD KHAN KHAKWANI — Petitioner Versus AAMIR HAYAT HIRAJ and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore
CLC
1999
Writ Petition No.3783 of 1997, decided on 12th September, 1997
1999 C L C 19
JAWAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSIONER‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore