Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 993 1992 SLD 993 1992 CLC 1824
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 346 of 1992, heard on 18th May, 1992.dates of hearing: 16th and 18th May, 1992
GUL ZARIN KIANI, J
Mirza Anwar Baig for Petitioner. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad for
Respondents No. 2. Mansoor Ahmad for
Respondents Nos. 7 and 8

GHULAM HABIB RANA vsDISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDIELECTION TRIBUNAL RAWALPINDI CANTT. and 7 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Cantonments (Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1979--- ----R. 75---Mode of trial of election petition---Cantonments (Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, although contained no specific reference to written statement, settlement of issues, manner, mode and scope of inquiry by inquiry officer for arriving at a decision by him yet inquiry touching important rights of parties could not be visualized without proper and real defence, which would include in it, to submit written statement of defence, lead evidence, and oral or written address of arguments to Inquiry Officer---Such course would be minimum essential of fair hearing by any tribunal based on wider rule of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard---Essentials for holding inquiry by Election Tribunal. An inquiry' in an action is not limited to what a person can see with his own eyes. It signifies a judicial inquiry with witnesses and hearing of parties or their counsel on merits. To `enquire' means to make investigation, o; to examine systematically in detail. In the present case although the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the enquiry by the Election Tribunal, nonetheless it was charged with the paramount duty to act judicially; to give notice of the election petition to all the interested parties; to hear them at trial of the election petition; it had to hold an enquiry and to record the evidence of the witnesses produced before it; it had got to give its decision concerning the civil right of the parties in the light of the law. Election Tribunal or the Inquiry Officer was obliged to hold an inquiry into the allegations contained in the Election petition and afford the parties an opportunity of real defence for substantiating their divergent view-points. If need be, by leading evidence. Therefore, the election-case could not be disposed of merely on the strength of the Election petition by applying Election Laws to it. Parties were not agreed on facts. There was a wide gap of difference between them. So. mere application of legal principles to them did not suffice. The difference was required to be bridged by…
🔒
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