| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1853 2005 SLD 1853 = 2005 PLD 145 |
Quetta High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2003, decided on 27thJuly, 2005. DATE of hearing: 19th May, 2005
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J. AND AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J
H. Shakil Ahmed for Petitioner. Kamran Murtaza, Rauf Ata, Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf and Amanullah Tareen for
Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2003, decided on 27thJuly, 2005. DATE of hearing: 19th May, 2005
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J. AND AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J
H. Shakil Ahmed for Petitioner. Kamran Murtaza, Rauf Ata, Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf and Amanullah Tareen for
Respondents
SAIFULLAH KHANVsHafiz HAMDULLAH and 4 others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 63(2), 113 & 225,199
Law: Representation Of People Act, 1976
Section: 14 & 99
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Arts. 63(2), 113 & 225---Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), Ss. 14 & 99---Election of Provincial or National Assembly---Disqualification of candidate---Questioning membership of successful candidate---Stages prescribed under law for raising such questions highlighted.Question of disqualification can be raised, firstly; at the stage when the candidate is being elected and secondly after having become a member. First stage is over, when nomination papers, without any objection from any of the candidates or elector, are accepted by Returning Officer. Question of second stage can be considered by Election Tribunal on the appeal filed by a candidate against the successful candidate or by the Election Commission under Article 63(2) read with Art. 113 of the Constitution, where question of disqualification from being a member is referred to him by the Speaker of the Assembly. Thus no remedy is available to an elector or voter to question the membership of a successful candidate, once election is over, even though the disqualification carried by the member has come to his knowledge after the election.(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -------Art. 199---Writ of quo warranto---Term "aggrieved person" would not apply stricto senso in such writ---Principles.The bar that the person applying for writ under Article 199 of the Constitution should be an aggrieved person, does not apply to the petition for writ of quo warranto, because it in its nature is an information laying against a person, who claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty and is intended to enquire by what authority lie supports his claim in order to have the right to the office, franchise or liberty be determined, therefore,- the term "aggrieved person" does not apply stricto senso to the writ of quo warranto, and any person can lay information before the Court for enquiring from the person holding a public office as to under what authority he is holding the office.Farzand Ali v. Province of Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 98 and PLD 1963 SC 203 rel.(c) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-----S. 99(1A)(k)---Conduct of General…