Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 243 of 1966, decided on 18th May 1966.
Art. 98‑Extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction‑ Petitioner coming to Court with unclean hands‑Disentitled to relief by way of writ even if on merits he has a good case‑Jurisdiction intended to be exercised to sub-serve and not defeat ends of justice‑‑Petitioner himself guilty of "illegal practice" under Electoral College Act, 1964‑Not entitled to relief under Art. 98‑Electoral College Act (IV of 1964), S. 62.
, Art. 98‑Finding of fact based on legal evidence and conclusive‑Cannot be convassed under Art. 98.
S. M. Ayyub Bukhari for Petitioner.
The order for the issue of writ of certiorari is strictly in all cases a matter of discretion, and therefore in a petition for the exercise for extraordinary and discretionary power the High Court is entitled to take into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, and in case it is found that the petitioner has not come with clean hand, it would disentitle the petitioner to the relief by way of writ even if he is found on merits to have a good case. The writ jurisdiction is intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends o justice.
2. The Election Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding on the basis of the statement of the Presiding Officer that the petitioner was guilty of illegal practice within the meaning of section 62 of the Electoral College Act, 1964, in that he recovered from the box of the petitioner ballot papers in a bundle which indicated that the ballot papers had been taken out of the polling booth by the voters and the petitioner procured some other voters to‑put it in the ballot box. This finding of fact which is based on legal evidence is conclusive and cannot be convassed in writ jurisdiction. Since the petitioner has been guilty of illegal practice, be has disentitled himself to a relief by way of writ jurisdiction in that a person guilty of illegal practice cannot be allowed to be benefited by his illegal practice. We, therefore, decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction in this case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
S. Q. Petition dismissed in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer