| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 794 1987 SLD 794 1987 SCMR 1987 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
aCivil Appeal No. 314 of 1986, decision dated: 22-02-1987.Onappeal from the judgment, dated 26-10-1986, in ElectionPetition 19/1985 of the Election Tribunal Punjab
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Sh. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Muhammad Arif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhamma
aCivil Appeal No. 314 of 1986, decision dated: 22-02-1987.Onappeal from the judgment, dated 26-10-1986, in ElectionPetition 19/1985 of the Election Tribunal Punjab
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Sh. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Muhammad Arif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhamma
Dr. SHER AFGHANvsAAMAR HAYAT KHAN and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Interpretation of statutes----- Construction of mandatory enactment--No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be construed directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience--Case of each enactment has to be construed in the light of the general object intended to be secured, the subject-matter and the importance of the provision and then it can be decided whether the enactment is imperative or only directory. Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1861) 30 L J Ch. 379 and Jamshed Ahmad Khan and others v. The S.D.M./Assistant Commissioner, Garden Sub-Division, Karachi and others P L D 1987 SC 213 ref. (b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-- ---Ss. 33(5) & 38(4)--Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1979, Rr. 17 & 23--Provisions of Ss.33(5) & 38(4) as well as Rr. 17 & 23 are directory in nature with which substantial compliance would be sufficient. Woodward v. Sarsons 1875 L R 10 CP 733 quoted. Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Waseem Sajjad P L D 1986 SC 178 distinguished. Morgan v. Simpson (1974) 3 All E.R. 722; Ruffle v. Rogers and another (1982) 3 All E.R. 157; Schol-field's Local Government Elections 8th Edn. 1979; Pontardawe Rural District Council Election Petition (1907) 2 K.B. 313; Halsbury's Laws of England, fourth edition, Volume 15, page 343 para. 635; Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1861) 30 L J Ch. 379; Bowers v. Smith 111 Mo. 45: 20 S W 101 and Mian Jamal Shah v. The Member Election Commission P L D 1966 S C 1 ref. (c) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-- ---Ss. 38(4)(c)(ii) & 33 (5) (b)--Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, R.17--'Prescribed mark'--Interpretation--Mere fact that prescribed mark has been affixed outside the reserved space for a candidate -in the ballot-paper cannot ipso facto and without more constitute violation of secrecy--Marking of ballot-paper with the device provided by the Presiding Officer cannot be said to be a mark other than the 'prescribed mark'--Place for marking the ballot-paper being not an essential mandate of law, the question of validity or otherwise of the ballot-paper would necessarily…
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