Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1985 SCMR 1109

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Other

Citation1985 SCMR 1109
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.W.P. No.991 of 1984
Date1984-10-23
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain
ResultLeave granted

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that Muhammad Rafique petitioner and Muhammad Aslam respondent No.2 contested the election from a workers' seat in Vehari in the Local Council Election held on 29-10-1983. The petitioner was successful in the election but Muhammad Aslam respondent challenged his election through an election petition on the ground that Muhammad Rafique petitioner was not a 'worker' but was the owner of the New Punjab Confectionary (Bakery) at Vehari.

2. After recording the evidence the Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election void. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this order which failed.

Hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of the learned Election Tribunal are based on a misreading of the testimony of the witnesses and documents produced by respondent No.2. He stated that although he admitted that he was a Manager of the said Bakery in the year 1981-82 yet he was not a Manager on the date when the nomination papers were filed and accepted and that there is nothing on the record to show .That he was so employed. He also submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that he was owner of the said Confectionary, which was the allegation against him in the petition before the Election Tribunal.

4. After thoroughly going through the evidence placed on the record, we feel that the matter requires further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider as to whether or not from the evidence on the record it is shown that the petitioner was not a 'worker' on 29-10-1983 and was in fact the owner or Manager of the Bakery in question.

5. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only).

6. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.

7. Operation of the impugned judgment of the Election Tribunal is suspended in the meanwhile.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch