MUHAMMAD ABBAS versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL (MUNICIPAL)
Article 9 ties Election of Pakistan Constitution Article 1973 Article, Municipal parties agree to the electoral tribunal to decide by counting the votes before the election dispute. On the receipt of the election record, the applicant raised the objection that the polling The seals were tampered with, which was used by a local government officer in cross examination. The copies were opened for the purpose of supply, but fresh bags were sealed on the sack. The officer further admitted that his seals were also tampered with and the polling station bag was torn. I objected to recalculation in case of compromise. The holding of the re-counting agreement was good as long as the election record was intact and it was tampered with, after which it was a useless record-counting function whose authenticity itself. Was in dispute and had all the exercises of jurisdiction and the pursuit of justice. On the discovery of the truth, when a part of the parties raised an objection to the authenticity of the record, the Election Tribunal had a duty to maintain its object and to exercise a conscious mind about the changing circumstances and its consequences. The Tribunal failed to properly address itself on this important question and failed to note the tampering and its impact in the official record, the Election Tribunal, under review, erred in ignoring these important aspects of the case. According to the law, the Election Tribunal of the case was remanded for this decision.
1987 M L D 1395(1)
[Lahore]
Before Saad Saood Jan and Riaz Ahmad, JJ
Mst. AMINA BEGUM and 13 others--Appellants
versus
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 11 others--Respondents Intra-Court Appeal No. 347 of 1980, heard on 26th April, 1986.
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)- ---S.10--Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) S .3 (2), proviso- Intra-Court appeal--At the time order was passed it was revisable by High Court and one of petitioners did avail this right- -Intra-Court appeal in circumstances was hit by proviso to S.3(2), therefore, dismissed.
Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan for Appellants.
Ch. Qamarud Din Khan Meo for Respondents Nos.3 to 12.
Date of hearing: 26th April, 1986.
JUDGMENT
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The basic order impugned in this Intra Court Appeal was made on 21-9-1967. At the time this order was passed it was revisable by the High Court. In fact one of the petitioners did avail of this right but his revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. That being so, this Intra-Court Appeal is hit by the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance. It is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.
M.A. K./A-145/L Intra-Court Appeal 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.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
best advocate from Jhudo lawyer
