h1

1988 CLC 682

HAJI RAIZ HUSSAIN
v/s
ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS
Per Abaid Ullah Khan, J.(a) Constitution of Pakistan(1973), Article 129, 199.

—Preamble–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–Review, power of–Punjab Local Government Ordinance neither expressly nor by inference has bestowed any power of review on Election Tribunal–Election Tribunals were constituted persona designata and have to act within four corners of law creating them–Dismissal of review petition by Election Tribunal for want of jurisdiction could not be taken exception to, in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.—[Review]. [pp. 690, 691, 696]A, D, F G & K

—Art. 129–Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 24–Official acts–Presumption relating to–Rebuttal of presumption–Requirement–Official acts, held, would be presumed to have been performed in a regular manner–Person raising objection to such presumption would be required to discharge his onus on basis of material which could be obtained by him and not by just a bald assertion. [p. 690]B

—S. 25–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–Constitutional jurisdiction for setting aside ex parte order passed by Election Tribunal–Scope of–Where inference and findings of Election Tribunal relating to setting aside of ex parte order against petitioner were recorded on appreciation of material, such findings held, could not be deemed to be without jurisdiction–Election Tribunal was competent to form its own view on appreciation of evidence–High Court would not convert itself into a Court of appeal and substitute its own view for that of Tribunal in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. [pp. 691, 695]E & H

—S. 25–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of–Setting aside of ex parte proceedings by Election Tribunal–Bonafides of plea, a main requisite–Sequence of events and conduct of petitioner as exhibited on record showed that he never reconciled with his failure to have the proceedings before Election Tribunal stayed or to have such proceedings transferred to some other Tribunal and thus exhibited unusual behaviour to prolong the same–High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction, held, was not to allow to party, a premium on its own acts of omission and commission designed through machinations so as to take advantage thereof at subsequent stages before higher forum by take advantage thereof at subsequent stages before higher forum by making same a ground for avoidance of proceedings and order of Tribunal–High Court found no scope to come to aid of petitioner in constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances. [p. 696]I

—Art. 199–Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 25–Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of–Factual controversy before Election Tribunal–Merit of decision not challenged–Effect–Where merit of decision, factual aspect whereof, going to the root of matter was not challenged, merely taking shelter behind technicalities, held, would be of little avail or persuasive value in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of High Court. [p. 696]J

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: