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 No. 956 of 1985, decided on 26th October, 1985.
(On appeal from judgment, dated 8‑10‑1985 of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 24 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Election‑‑Petitioner persuaded Election Tribunal to adopt a particular course for determining question as to which of two contesting candidates had received majority votes and Tribunal acting upon agreed arrangement‑‑Petitioner, held, could not be allowed to question propriety of Tribunal in acting upon a course suggested to it by himself‑‑Order of High Court dismissing petitioner's writ petition in discretionary writ jurisdiction maintained‑‑Leave refused.
Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985
‑In an Election Petition filed by the respondent challenging the election of the petitioner and claiming that he was entitled to be declared as the elected candidate, the Election Tribunal accepted the suggestion made by the petitioner of how the Tribunal may proceed to determine this question and proceeded to decide the petition in accordance therewith. The Tribunal found ‑ that the respondent was entitled to be declared as the elected candidate and held accordingly.
The petitioner challenged the decision of the Election Tribunal in the High Court by filing a writ petition. This was rejected as the High Court held that the arrangement agreed to by the parties and acted upon by the Election Tribunal was neither repugnant to any law, nor unconscionable nor against the public policy. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court is challenged by the present petition.
We consider that the High Court was right in not interfering with the order of the Election Tribunal. The parties, principally the petitioner, had persuaded the Election Tribunal to adopt a particular course for determining the question as to which of the two contesting candidates had received the majority of votes. Having done so, the petitioner could not be allowed to question the propriety of the Tribunal in acting upon a course suggested to it by himself. In the above circumstances, the petitioner could not be granted any relief by the High Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction. His writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court and the decision of the High Court being unexceptionable no interference therewith by this Court is warranted.
This petition is dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer