| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5201 = 1966 SLD 5201 = 1966 PLD 335 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Writ Petition No. 89 of 1966, decided on 14th January 1966.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, C. J. and Karam Elahi Chauhan,J
M. A. Buttar for Petitioner.
Writ Petition No. 89 of 1966, decided on 14th January 1966.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, C. J. and Karam Elahi Chauhan,J
M. A. Buttar for Petitioner.
Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI---Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS- -Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 151
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151-Stay of proceed ings-Election to Legislature and other elective bodies-Candi dates have right to pursue legal remedies in Court but cannot be granted injunction to stay election about to be held Machinery of public administration cannot be brought to standstill for sake of one individual-Mere fact that remedy is likely to become infructuous if injunction not granted-Not sufficient in itself to warrant issue of injunction-Electoral College Act (IV of 1964). In a matter arising out of election proposed to be held under the Electoral College Act, 1964 a writ petition was filed in the High Court. Along with the petition an application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was also filed praying that status quo be maintained and the respondents be restrained from holding the election: Held, that making of interim order would be tantamount to interfering with the carrying out of the functions and public duties of the public authorities and would be otherwise harmful to the public interest. A stay order in such circumstances is likely to create complications and the balance of convenience lies in not issuing it. A machinery of public administration cannot be brought to a standstill simply for the sake of one individual. A candidate for election to an electoral body like anyone else has a right to pursue his legal remedies, whatever they may be, but, save in exceptional circumstances, it is an abuse, for a candidate who for some reason is shut out, to make his pursuit of remedies in Civil Courts a weapon for dislocating the electoral machinery and stopping an election. Injunction could not be granted as the balance of inconvenience resulting from the postponing of the election would be greater than inconvenience resulting from the election being held on the fixed date. The contention that if temporary injunction was not issued, the legal remedy being pursued by him would become infructuous is not in itself sufficient to warrant the issue of temporary injunction. In the matter of election of Legislatures and other electoral bodies an exception is made in it that no dispute arising in the course of an…