h1

2008 YLR 2386

BHATTI

V/S

RETURNING OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS


Per Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J–

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 62(f), 189, 190 & 199–
r/w Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) S. 14 & 99(I)(f)–

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered their contentions carefully. We do not agree with the learned counsel for reason which follows hereinafter. The learned Tribunal reproduced in para. 3 the earlier Full Bench judgment, which read as under : —

“Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be (petitioner)be termed as sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and Ameen as provided for in Article 62(f) of the Constitution as well as section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and consequently cannot be allowed to contest election.”

The above paragraph referred to by the learned Tribunal from the Full Bench judgment clearly shows that this Court in the said Full Bench judgment held present petitioner a person who is not sagacious, honest, Ameen, etc. This finding was approved by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and thereby merged into order of the Honourable Supreme Court passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 2 to 5 of 2008 decided on 12-2-2008 as below : –

“The entire record produced by the University shows that the petitioner has been attempting through unfair means to obtain Bachelor Degree but all in vain. Learned Counsel through argued at length yet could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment which being well reasoned and based on cogent grounds does not warrant interference by this Court.”

The above paragraph from the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that findings of this Court in the above mentioned Full Bench judgment was not only approved, it was found completely legal, firm, well reasoned and based on cogent grounds.

According to Article 189 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon the High Court. Likewise Article 190 of the Constitution requires all judicial and executive authorities to act in aid of the Honourable Supreme Court. In the instant case, the finding was passed by a Full Bench of the Court and approved by the Honourable Supreme Court. Moreover, in the said case application of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution was neither the issue nor attracted. In the instant case, we are faced entirely with a different situation.

Thus, if according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, disqualification of the petitioner stands erased by flux of time and changed circumstances, the petitioner may approach the Honourable Supreme Court for review or modification of the judgment above noted. Unless that happens, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court shall remain binding upon this Court. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. [pp. 2387, 2388] A,B,C & D

Dr. M. Mohy-ud-Din Qazi along with Muhammad Kazim Khan and Ch. Muhammad Masood Jehangir for Petitioner.

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: