Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 892 of 1980, decided on 7th December, 1980.
(Against the judgment and order, dated 28‑6‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 5722 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Election petition becoming infructuous‑‑Application praying stay of Elections‑‑‑ Holding of polls not stayed but order passed not to notify result during pendency of petition‑‑Petitioner's admission subsequently that he had been defeated though results were not formally notified‑‑Petition dismissed as infructuous.
A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court, Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
‑Shahbaz Khan, petitioner, contested election alongwith Muhammad Sadiq, Lal Khan and Gulzar Khan, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the recent District Council Elections on one of the two seats from a multi‑member Electoral Unit in Union Council, Dandot, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum.
2. Since only two persons were to be elected, Gulzar and Sadiq were declared successful, having obtained more votes than the other contestants. Gulzar obtained maximum number of votes 298, Sadiq secured 241 and petitioner Shahbaz got 227 votes.
3. The petitioner filed an election Petition challenging the election of Sadiq, respondent. On the joint statement of the counsel for the parties the Election Tribunal, by its order, dated 6‑5‑1980 declared the election as a whole to be void. Consequently, fresh elections were ordered to be held for the two seats.
4. The petitioner challenged the order of the Election Tribunal through a writ petition in the High Court which was admitted to regular hearing. The petitioner also filed an application praying for the stay of the Elections but it was dismissed by order, dated 28‑6‑1980. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of stay, the petitioner filed an I.‑C.A., against the above‑mentioned interim order. But the I.‑C. A. was dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, the present petition.
5. The petitioner also filed an application for stay before this Court on which the learned Chief Justice was pleased to order that holding of the polls could not be stayed but the result of the election may not be formally notified during the pendency of this petition.
6. The learned counsel admitted before us that the elections have already been held and that he has again been defeated, although the result has not yet been finalized and notified by the Returning Officer as ordered by the learned Chief Justice.
In view of the above‑noted admission, it is evident that the petition has become infructuous. It is, therefore, dismissed as such.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer