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. 1019 of 1984, decided on 24th October, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court; Multan Bench, Multan, dated 23‑9‑1984 passed in W.P. No.991 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules,1979, r.3‑‑Election petition‑‑Workers' seat‑‑Successful candidate not being a worker, election declared void‑‑Leave granted to consider as to whether or not from evidence on record it is shown that petitioner was not a worker on date of election.
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing: 24th October, 1984.
‑‑ The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that Muhammad Rafique petitioner and Muhammad Aslam respondent No.2 contested the election from a workers' seat in Vehari in the Local Council Election held on 29‑10‑1983. The petitioner was successful in the election but Muhammad Aslam respondent challenged his election through an election petition on the ground that Muhammad Rafique petitioner was not a 'worker' but was the owner of the New Punjab Confectionary (Bakery) at Vehari.
2. After recording the evidence the Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election void. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this order which failed.
Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of the learned Election Tribunal are based on a misreading of the testimony of the witnesses and documents produced by respondent No.2. He stated that although he admitted that he was a Manager of the said Bakery in the year 1981‑82 yet he was not a Manager on the date when the nomination papers were filed and accepted and that there is nothing on the record to show .that he was so employed. He also submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that he was owner of the said Confectionary, which was the allegation against him in the petition before the Election Tribunal.
4. After thoroughly going through the evidence placed on the record, we feel that the matter requires further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider as to whether or not from the evidence on the record it is shown that the petitioner was not a 'worker' on 29‑10‑1983 and was in fact the owner or Manager of the Bakery in question.
5.Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only).
6.To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
7.Operation of the impugned judgment of the Election Tribunal is suspended in the meanwhile.
M.I Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer