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 Rustam S. Sidhwa and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ
Malik ATA HUSSAIN-Petitioner
versus
D. C., MUZAFFARGARH-Respondent
Writ Petition No. 319 of 1980, decided on 6th June, 1982.
Art. 9-Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of .1979), S. 21 (i) ( f ), Proviso - Constitutional jurisdiction Interference by High Court-Member Union Council (depot-holder) disqualified to be candidate and member of Union Council-Disqualification removed by amendment vide Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1981)-Member still functioning and perform---duties as Held, in circumstances, High Court not to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction.
Noor Muhammad Chandio for petitioner.
Date of hearing : 6th June, 1982.
Rustam S. SIDHWA J. This is a petition by Malik Ata Hussain petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of quop warranto calling upon Haji Zain-Ul-Abidin, respondent NO. 2 to show under what authority of law be holds his office as member of the Union Council Budh.
2. Registered A. D. notices were issued to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for 5th May, 1982 but nobody turned up on their behalf. Ex parte proceedings were, therefore, ordered against them. The case was then adjourned for today.
3. The petitioner's case is that Haji Zainul-Abidin, respondent No. 2, was disqualified to be a candidate and a member of Union Council, Budh, as he was a depot holder. By virtue of the Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance IV of 1981, the disqualification attaching to a person who was a depot holder has been dropped and under the newly-added subsection (2) to section 21 of the Punjab Local Govern ment Ordinance, IV of 1981, a person who was suffering from a dis qualification, which has been removed by virtue of the proviso to clause (f) of subsection (1) of section 21, has to be treated, nowithstanding any other provision to the contrary contained in the Ordinance, as eligible to be a candidate or a member of a local Council. Respondent No. 2 is still functioning as a member and is performing his duties, as such. In these circumstances, we do not propose to interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed.
K.M.A. Writ petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer