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.
[Lahore]
Before Gul Muhammad Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ
JAVED ASLAM MALIK AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
versus
RETURNING OFFICER-Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3249 of 1982, decided on 4th October, 1982.
-- Art. 9---Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17 (2)-Writ petition - Elaborate inquiry - Petitioners alleging Returning Officer misled them and ousted them from contesting elections-Allegations (if proved) requiring severe action against Returning Officer-Provision for such situation already made by "" Legislature aide S. 17 (2), Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI ' of 1979)-Held, question requires elaborate inquiry ,which High Court generally does not enter into and petitioners should have approached Election Authority.
Mushtaq. Raj for Petitioners.
GUT. MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-It is stated by the learned counsel that the Returning Officer misled the petitioner and other candidates, opposing respondent No. 3, so that they deposited a sum of Rs. 500 each as security, instead of Rs. 1,000 as required under rule 14. It is further stated that when the petitioner and others came to know that they had been misled they rushed back to deposit the remaining amount but the Returning officer had closed his office at 2.00 p. m., so as to oust them from contest ing the election.
2. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the Municipality in ques tion had been upgraded to attain the status of a corporation. It is further admitted that under the Rules in such a case a sum of Rs. 1.000 was to be deposited as security by each candidate. The question, therefore, is whether this Court should interfere in such a case.
3. Admittedly, this question would need an elaborate inquiry, which this Court generally would not enter into The allegations if proved may also require a severe action, against the Returning Officer. The Legislature on the other hand, has taken care of such a situation under section 17 (2). The petitioner, therefore, should have approached the Election Authority who is competent to interfere in such matters.
This petition is, therefore. misplaced and shall stand disposed of as such.
K.M.A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer