Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1047 2019 SLD 1047 2019 PLJ 46
Quetta High Court
C.P. No. 556 of 2018, decision Dated: 12.05.2018. Hearing Dated: 18.05.2018.
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Amanullah Kanrani and Naseebullah Tareen, Advocates

ASSEMBLY BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS

VS

SPEAKER, BALOCHISTAN ASSEMBLY, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 69,127,199

Law: Provincial Assembly of Balochistan, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, 1974

Section: R.12,13,14,22,195,204,205,220

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Provincial Assembly of Balochistan, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, 1974, Rr. 12, 13, 14, 22, 195, 204, 205 & 220--Conduct of Members Provincial Assembly--Suspension of Members of Balochistan Assembly--Issuance of Notification--Exercise of powers in absence of speaker of presiding officer--Challenge to--Power available to Presiding Officer was exercised in due course, ended in an adverse order against petitioners--Nothing annexed with petition to disclose malafides on part of Presiding Officer, and her politically motivated inimical attitude towards petitioners--Session was stated to be once adjourned to some other date, but re-called on same day--Nothing placed in support thereof--It was not clear that power was exercised either under Rule 22 of Rules or circumstances compelled Presiding Officer to exercise power within ambit of Rule 205 of Rules, 1974--It was learnt from newspapers that some Resolution, within meaning of Proviso attached to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 204 of Rules, 1974, had already been passed by Provincial Assembly, and suspension of petitioners was terminated--Thus a copy of Notification was called from respective office for perusal which was received and as taken on record--Petitioners have failed to make out a case which shows any violation of Constitution or of Rules, 1974, or malafides on part of presiding Officer resulted in passing of an order prejudicial to petitioners and also resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution, thus mandated exercise of powers available under Article 199 of Constitution by this Court--Legal course rather remedy provided by Rules, 1974 have already been exercised resulted in issuance of subsequent Notification, whereby order of suspension had already been terminated--Before parting with it is to remind to petitioners, learned Members of Assembly, that Presiding Officer acted within authority placed by Rules, 1974, thus undermining authority by acts on part of petitioners neither could be appreciated, nor could be allowed to continue--Members of Assembly have to follow Rules and to observe conduct…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492