| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2792 = 1962 SLD 2792 = 1962 PLD 786 |
Lahore High Court
Qazi GHULAM AHMAD-Petitioner Versus J. F. ELAHI, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, CHAKWAL, AND OTHERS-Respondents
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Nazeer Ahmed Mahmood, JJ
Gul Muhammad Khan for
Respondent No. 3. Nemo for other
Respondents.
Qazi GHULAM AHMAD-Petitioner Versus J. F. ELAHI, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, CHAKWAL, AND OTHERS-Respondents
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Nazeer Ahmed Mahmood, JJ
Gul Muhammad Khan for
Respondent No. 3. Nemo for other
Respondents.
Qazi GHULAM AHMAD-Petitioner
VERSUS
J. F. ELAHI, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, CHAKWAL, AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Basic Democracies Election Rules, 1959, r.55-Order of Election Tribunal-Final-Order, however, not immune from scrutiny by Court competent to issue writ of mandamus or certiorari-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170-Powers of Court competent to issue writ vis-a-vis powers of appellate or revisional authority-Order of Tribunal of special jurisdiction. When can be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. An appellate or revisional authority has a right to go into the merits of the questions which may be agitated before it, but the powers of a Court which can issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari extend to seeing whether the Tribunal whose order is attacked by means of a writ petition has acted in a manner in which it could not have acted or has refused to act as it could and should have acted, and to passing an appro priate order if the Court comes to the conclusions that one of the two aforementioned defects exist in the order of the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. If by giving a wrong decision on question of law, a Tribunal of special jurisdiction has arrived at a conclusion that it bad no jurisdiction in the matter in which it actually had jurisdiction or has arrived at the conclusion that it has jurisdiction in a matter in which it had none, occasion for exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court possessing that jurisdiction arises. (c) West Pakistan Basic Democracies Election Rules, 1959, rr. 55 (3), 27 (4) & 2 (5)-Words "contesting candidate" in sub- rule (3) of r. 55-Definition given in clause (5) of r. 2 not applic able-Candidate failing to supply requisite number of ballot boxes and deemed to have retired from election by virtue of r. 27 (4) Cannot be deemed to be "contesting candidate" for purposes of sub -rule (3) of r. 5J-Non joinder of such candidate as respondent, does not render election petition invalid. (d) Words and phrase-"Perverse" and "wrong"-Whether distinct. Sh. Muhammad Shag for Petitioner. Gul Muhammad Khan for Respondent No. 3. Nemo for other Respondents. …