Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

HASSAN SHAH versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG


The Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 Section 24 Election Petition Election Tribunal directed the Returning Officer to count the votes and submit the report. Nor can any subsequent report be submitted in the election. The unfair applicant was entitled to take all the petitions before the Election Tribunal, including directing the counting of votes or filing a report.
1985 M L D 510

[Lahore]

Before Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Aslam titian, JJ

HASSAN SHAH--Petitioner

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG and 3 others--Respondents

Writ Petition No.4604 of 1983, heard on 30th January, 1984.

Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)--

---S.24--Election petition--Election Tribunal directing Returning Officer to recount votes and submit report--Objection to such direction- Contention of petitioner that Election Tribunal had no right to ask for recounting of votes from Returning Officer nor latter could file any report thereof to Election Tribunal, held, unjustified--Petitioner was entitled to raise all pleas before Election Tribunal including direction for recounting of votes or submission of report--Election Tribunal would take all those pleas into account and proceed and disposing of in accordance with law.

Lal Khan Baluch for Petitioner.

Malik Allah Yar for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th January, 1984.

JUDGMENT

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J:-

Instead of dealing with the miscellaneous application both the learned counsel stated that the main petition may as well be disposed of.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Election Tribunal had no right to ask for the recounting from the Returning Officer/ Assistant Commissioner nor could the latter file any report. Whatever had to be done on the election petition was to be done by the Election Tribunal itself.

3. The learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3 has submitted that the learned Election Tribunal has only asked for a report and whatever pleas the petitioner may have in relation to the process and disposal of the election petition, he can raise those before the learned Election Tribunal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to be quite obvious that whatever pleas the petitioner has in, regard to the processing and disposal pf the election petition by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner will lie entitled to take before him under the law. Therefore, there is no justification to declare the order of the learned Election Tribunal dated 24-10-1983 to be without lawful authority. Whatever the petitioner has to say he may say so before the Election p Tribunal and take all pleas including the direction for recounting or submission of the report or any other available under the law. The learned Election Tribunal will obviously take those into account and proceed with the election petition in accordance with law and dispose of the same accordingly. This petition is thus disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.

H.B.T.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocate from Chaghi lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.