Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 561 of 1984, heard on 8th October, 1984.

(On appeal from judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑3‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 855 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.24‑ Punjab Local Council (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, r. 12‑‑Submission in support of petition for leave to appeal being bare repetitions of those made before High Court‑‑Judgment of High Court found in full accord with well‑settled principles of law‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Hamidullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1984.

‑‑Petitioner unsuccessfully contested election as a member of Municipal Committee from Electoral Unit No. 6, Gujrat, securing 759 votes as against 866 secured by respondent No. 2. He challenged respondent's election on the ground that respondent not being present in Gujrat on the day fixed for the filing of nomination papers, the presentation of his nomination paper was invalid, and his Agent being a minor was disqualified from being appointed.

Both these pleas did not find favour with Election Tribunal and his election petition was dismissed. Petitioner then challenged the order of the Election Tribunal in a Constitution Petition in Lahore High Court but this too was dismissed by the judgment dated 17‑3‑1984 for the reasons which may be usefully reproduced hereunder:‑

"The contentions have no force. Any irregularity in the appointment of an agent which not materially affected the result as found by the learned Election Tribunal, cannot have the effect of disfranchising the voters. The fact that the respondent No. 2 was in Karachi on the day the nomination papers were filed, does not invalidate the nomination papers which were probably filed by the proposer before the Returning Officer and the nomination having been duly proposed, seconded and accepted by the candidate, was perfectly in order. The petitioner has lost by more than 100 votes. His grievances have been tried by a competent Court of exclusive jurisdiction, the Election Tribunal. There is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction to call for interference in constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine."

After having heard the learned counsel in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court in the light of the submissions made by him which are bare repetitions of those that were urged, before the High Court. We are early of the view that the judgment of the High Court is full accord with the well‑settled principle of law and interference by this Court will not be justified.

The petition is dismissed.

M.Y.H . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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