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. 271 of 1985, decided on 4th June, 1985.
(Against the judgment of the High Court, dated 16‑2‑1985, passed in Writ Petition No. 649 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, Rr. 3, 4 & 5‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider suo motu any ground not taken in petition before it.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th June, 1985.
‑‑The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that Muhammad Latif and Abdur Rahman contested the election for seat of a union council in District Sialkot. Muhammad Latif secured 220 votes as against 102 votes obtained by Abdur Rehman and was declared successful. Abdur Rehman challenged his election before the Election Tribunal, Sialkot, alleging that the list of voters which was made the basis of election was illegal. Issues were framed and evidence was led. The Election Tribunal, however, held that the aforementioned allegation could not be proved. But instead of dismissing the election petition the learned Election Tribunal, suo motu, took into consideration the fact that the polling staff had entered the Identity Card Numbers of each and every voter on their ballots, thus, infringing; the provisions of rule 29 of the Election Rules, 1979, relating to secrecy of ballots.' The Election Tribunal, therefore, declared the election of Muhammad Latif void.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel before us is that the learned Election Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to consider suo motu any ground not taken in the petition before it.
3. After hearing the petitioner's counsel and going through the impugned order as well as the relevant rules we feel that this question of law needs consideration.
Leave is, therefore, granted for this purpose. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000.
4. To be argued on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
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