| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2473 2015 SLD 2473 2015 PLD 206 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 100 of 2014, decided on 12th May, 2015.DATE of hearing: 5th May, 2015.
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, C.J. AND MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J
Abdul Latif Afridi and Khushdil Khan for Petitioners. Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate-General and Qazi Muhammad Anwar for the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Writ Petition No. 100 of 2014, decided on 12th May, 2015.DATE of hearing: 5th May, 2015.
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, C.J. AND MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J
Abdul Latif Afridi and Khushdil Khan for Petitioners. Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate-General and Qazi Muhammad Anwar for the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Sardar HUSSAIN BABAK and anothervsGOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act (XXVIII of 2013)--- ----Ss. 27, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 & 63---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.17(2), 199 & 140-A---Constitutional petition---Fundamental rights---Judicial review under Art.199 of the Constitution---Scope---Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution challenging vires of provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013---Maintainability---"Aggrieved person"---Scope---Petitioners filed the petitions challenging the vires of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 on the ground that certain provisions of the Act were in conflict with provisions of Arts.8 to 28 and 140-A of the Constitution and sought striking down of the same under doctrine of judicial review---Petitioners contended that provisions of S.27(2) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 which provided election of Village Council and Neighbourhood Council on non-party basis were inconsistent with Arts.17(2) and 140-A of the Constitution---Authorities took plea that constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution was not maintainable as petitioners first had to show that they were "aggrieved" within meaning of Art.199 and that persons having no affiliation with political party could also competently take part in election as independent candidates---Validity---Petitioners being voters of their respective Union Councils could competently file the present petitions in their independent capacity without having any authority from their political parties---In countries with written constitutions, fundamental rights had formed part of written constitution and any law or executive action which was inconsistent with fundamental rights, would come under judicial review---Petitioners feeling affected to cast their votes on non-party basis could be termed as "aggrieved persons" within meaning of Art.199, of the Constitution, having been denied the right granted by the Constitution---High Court could take cognizance of matters agitated 'pro bono publico' and test for invoking constitutional jurisdiction in such matters was that the matter was in public interest and petitioners aimed for public…