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. 29-R of 1981, decided on 10th March 1981,
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28th February 1981, passed in W. P. No. 7422 of 1980).
----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Impugned order restraining autho rities concerned from declaring result of election-Within discre tionary jurisdiction of High Court--Such exercise of jurisdiction not against any law or principle-Petitioner being entitled to put forward his point of view with regard to question at issue at time of hearing of main writ petitions no justification, held, made out for interference by Supreme Court.--[Jurisdiction].
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate and M. A. Siddlqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 10th March 1981.
Leave to appeal has been sought from order, dated 28-2-19:1, of the Lahore High Court whereby a Division Bench considering the importance of the question involved in a Constitutional petition requested the learned Chief Justice of that Court to constitute a larger Bench.
The learned counsel for the present petitioner (respondent No. 3 before the High Court), as explained by the learned counsel, had prayed before the Division Bench that he having been elected as a Councilor, the autho rities concerned be permitted to declare the official results. The Bench in the circumstances rejected the prayer and affirmed the earlier order passed by a learned Single Judge on 7-7-1980, to the effect that although the election might take place, its result would not be announced.
When questioned as to what is the real grievance of the petitioner in connection with which this petition for leave to appeal has been filed, learned counsel stated that the petitioner wants that his result as a Councilor should be declared so that he may function as such. The learned counsel also contended that the point noted by the learned Division Bench of the High Court in the order of reference could not be examined in the juris diction conferred on the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitu tion.
The impugned order in so far as it restrained the authorities concerned from declaring the result of the election was within discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court. The exercise of discretion is not against any law or principle. And the petitioner would be entitled to put forward his point of view with regard to the question referred to the Full Bench at the time of the hearing of the Writ Petition.
No justification has been made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer