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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 61/1968, decided on 21st June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st December 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1908/67).
rr. 3, 6 & 7‑First meeting called for election of Chairman adjourned on account of identity of one member being doubtful‑Second meeting convened on same day attended by only one candidate and his supporters‑Second meeting held to be in contravention of provisions of rr. 3, 6 & 7 and as such election at such meeting null and void‑Contention that at second meeting 6 out of a house of 11 members had attended and as such absence of S members could not have affected result of election -Held not tenable.
D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st June 1968.
‑This petition relates to the election of the Chairman of the Union Council of Drigra in Sadiqabad Tehsil which consists of 11 elected members.
A meeting was convened by the Controlling Authority for the purpose of electing a Chairman on the 18th of January 1966, under notice to all the members and Ch. Abdul Latif, a Sub‑Divisional Officer Irrigation was appointed as the Presiding Officer.
As the scrutiny of the members took place, the identity of one Ghulam Qadir was disputed. The Presiding Officer without resolving the matter adjourned the meeting which was thus dispersed. The same day, however, at 5‑10 p.m., the meeting was re‑convened which was attended by the petitioner and his 5 supporters but not by the remaining Members. The petitioner was duly proposed and elected as Chairman on account of 6 votes, all polled in his favour.
The respondent challenged the election by an election petition which succeeded on the ground that the first meeting having been adjourned sine die, the second could not be convened without the permission of the Controlling Authority and without 3 days' clear notice to all the Members as required by Rules 3, 6 and 7 of the West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Election of Chairman) Rules, 1960. The petitioner's election was declared null and void.
His Writ Petition in the High Court has also been dismissed with the result that a fresh election of the Chairman of the Council has to take place.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the count at the second meeting disclosed a clear majority of 6 in favour of the petitioner in a house of 11 members and that the presence of the respondent and his party consisting of 5 members could not have materially affected the result of the election. The argument is' misconceived. In the present case there has been a clear violation of the statutory rules in holding the second meeting in the manner in which it was done. It cannot be foretold as to what would have been the result of the election if the respondent and his party were present in a proper election meeting convened for the purpose.
There is no ground for interference. The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer