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 Miscellaneous Application No. 625 of 1975 in Miscellaneous Appeal ‑No. 27 of 1975, decided on 17th June 1975.
(a) Privileges of Members of National Assembly (Exemption from Preventive Detention and Personal Appearance) Act (I of 1963)‑
‑‑ Ss. 3 & 4‑Exemption from attendance before Election Tribunal‑Privilege of Member‑Session of Assembly means period commencing on day of first meeting and lasting till prorogued or dissolved‑Privilege of exemption from attendance ‑ Question not relevant in case of Assembly being adjourned sine die--Appellant Member's counsel undertaking to submit written arguments‑Tribunal entitled to assume that he would do so and no intimation to contrary being given, Tribunal examining evidence and giving decision---Decision thus given not without jurisdiction‑Even otherwise appellant could not seek benefit of discretionary remedy without showing strong prima facie case.
Mian Muhammad Sharif v. Member, Election Commission, Lahore P L D 1968 Lah. 219 ref.
‑‑ Court answering first question in negative, and second question not requiring any finding‑Observations made on second question‑Obiter dicta.
‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 4--- Interim injunction ‑ No provision to contrary existing in a special enactment‑Interim relief could be grant ed only on settled principles of O. XXXIX.
‑‑ S. 67‑Declaration of election as void‑Could be made inter alia on ground of "failure of any person to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and the rules"‑Finding that candidate "could not suffer for the faults of the election staff"‑Held : Contrary to express provisions of section.
Section 67 empowers the Election Tribunal to declare the election, as a whole, to be void either by reason of "the prevalence of extensive corrupt ---- practices at the election", or, on the ground of illegal practices and "the failure of any person to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and the rules", and the finding of the Tribunal, that a candidate should not suffer "for the faults of the election staff", is contrary to the express provisions of this section.
Khalid M. Ishaq for Appellant.
M. A. Pesh Imam for Respondent No. 1.
Z. H. Mirza, A.‑G. for Respondent No. 2.
S. Nasiruddin for Respondents Nos. 3 to 10.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer