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 Special Leave to appeal No. 59 of 1981, decided on 10th August, 1981.
(On petition against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑10‑1980 in Writ Petition No. 2822 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Question involved being academic and that of no practical value‑‑Supreme Court refused to grant leave.
Mian Muhammad Yasin Khan Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
The petitioner, a registered voter of village Toleka, tehsil and district Gujranwala, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑10‑1980 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him challenging the qualification of respondent No.1 to be a member of the Zilla Council, Gujranwala, on the ground that he was depot‑holder was dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 1 was admittedly a depot‑holder and according to the law then in the field not qualified to be a member of the Zilla Council. However, it appears that he submitted his resignation from that position on 4‑6‑1979 though the resignation was not accepted by the time the nomination papers came to be filed on 12‑12‑1979. The learned Judges in the High Court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto as was sought by the petitioner on the following grounds‑‑
"The facts as given above would go to show that the respondent had already expressed his intention not to carry on the agency. It was not a job of a nature in which his resignation was subject to any acceptance. The relationship between the Food Department and the respondent was that of a principal and an agent and the moment the respondent expressed his intention not to carry on the agency he stood relieved of the agency. It is to be noted that there is no provision in the rules that a depot‑holder cannot abandon the depot or that the same is subject to any acceptance by the Food Department. There is even no provision for notice. The respondent thus was not a depot‑holder on the date of his nomination or becoming a member and so not disqualified. "
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acceptance of the resignation was necessary and till it was accepted the petitioner could not be considered eligible and, in fact, was not eligible on the date when he filed his nomination paper. The dis qualification should have been given effect to and the respondent should' have been unseated.
4. The petition does not disclose a live controversy. It is admitted that by a subsequent change in the law (Ord. IV of 1981) to avoid such litigation and to end the disqualification, this disqualification was done away with. In view of a clearer statement of law and the public policy it cannot now be said that the order of the High Court requires interference, for the exercise would be academic and futile, and of no practical value. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
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