Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98(2),98(b)

Law: Basic Democracies Order [President's Order No. 18 of 1959

Section: 25(2),25(4)

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),   Art. 98 (2) (b)-Quo warranto-Petition for writ of quo warranto can be moved by "any person" and not necessarily by aggrieved party only.   (b) Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959),   Arts. 25(2) & 25(4) read -with Second Sch., Part H, para. 2 (f )-Disqualification existing at time of election-Election of such person as member of Union Council void ab initio-Mere fact that nomination paper was accepted by Returning Officer, or District Council refused to remove him after election-Of no avail.   (c) Electoral College Act (IV of 1964),   S. 53 (2) (b)-Period of 5 years-Election of person disqualified challenged by way of writ petition before expiry of period-Mere fact that at time of disposing of petition period of 5 years had been completed-No ground for refusing writ-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.   (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),   Art. 98(2) (b) (ii)-Quo- warranto-Void election-Delay in filing writ petition immaterial-- Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959), Art. 25(2) read with Second Sch., Part II, para. 2 (f ). Date of hearing: 24th June 1964.     JUDGMENT   A. M. SAYEM, J.---This Rule at the instance of Md. Sadeque, a permanent resident of village Sarail within Union No. 7, in the District of Comilla, was issued on 13th November 1963, calling upon the respondent Syed Rafiq Ali to show under what authority of law he claims to hold the offices of Chairman and Member of the said Union Council. Subsequently, the Comilla District Council before whom a requisition by the Controlling Authority for calling h special meeting for considering the removal of the said respondent from the said offices was pend ing was added as party respondent to the Rule.   The added respondent, namely, the Comilla District Council did not enter appearance, and it was only the original respondent, Syed Rafiq Ali, who contested the Rule.   It has been alleged in the petition, upon which this rule was issued, that on the date of his election to the Union Council as a member the contesting respondent was disqualified for being a candidate for such membership…