Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 30 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed J MUHAMMAD ZAHID etc - - Respondents versus RETURNING OFFICER PP - 213 MULTAN - III and others - - Appellants EA No 15 29 30 31 61 62 65 98 108 116 125 of 2018 decided on 2562018 Punjab Local Government Act 2013 (XVIII of 2013) - - - - - - S 28Elections Act 2017 (Act No XXXIII of 2017) S 231 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Arts 62 63 - - Rejection of nomination papers - - Dual membership - - Tending of resignations - - Qualification for candidate - - Right to participation - - Determination - - Challenge to - - Viewed from their angle by necessary implication a Mayor Deputy Mayor or Chairman were required to quit office before joining electoral race however purpose contemplated by section ibid could only become enforceable alter incumbent successfully returns from constituency and he could take that chance without burning his boats - - Such a construction would be riot only just and fair but also in accord with purpose behind law - - Rights provided to a citizen under Elections Act 2017 in terms of qualification for a candidate based upon a Constitutional edifice unambiguously prevail upon Punjab Local Government Act a Provincial Statute - - A contra construction or interpretation would essentially suffer from yet another flaw and that is discrimination as in some of provinces no such embargo is placed upon electoral choices - - Argument by learned Assistant Attorney General that since vires of Statute is still under consideration appellants should hold in abeyance their political pursuits is beside mark they can participate in election and in case they emerged triumphant they shall cease to hold former office even without resignation - - Appeals was allowed [Para 4] A B Sh Tanveer Ahmad Advocate (in EA No 15 of 2018) Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed Advocate (in EA No 29 - 2018 30 - 2018 31 - 2018 116 - 2018) Syed Muzammil Hussain Shah Bokhari Advocate (in EA No 65 - 2018 98 - 2018) Malik Abid Hussain Khakhi Advocate (in EA No 61 - 2018) Rao Sajjad - ur - Rehman Advocate in (EA No 62 - 2018) Syed Riaz - ul - Hassan Gillani Advocate (in EA No 108 - 2018) Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig Advocate (in EA No125 - 2018) Rana Naveed Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan Mehr Nazar Abbas Chawan Assistant Advocate General Punjab Ch Parvez Akhtar Gujjar Advocate for Election Commission of PakistanJudgement Result: Judgement Result:

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Scope-Alternate and adequate remedy-Effect-Question of adequacy is not a rule of law barring or limiting jurisdiction of High Court, it controls and regulates the same where order, act or omission of a functionary appears to be autocratic, capricious or tends to defy mandatory pre-condition for exercise of authority or suffers from total lack of jurisdiction or indicates exercise of assumption of authority which evidently does not vest in it or reflects patent illegality whereby alternate remedy does not seem to be effective or efficacious. Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813 rel. (b) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)- -S. 95-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A-Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.16-Release of vehicle-"Case property", question of-Inspection by Motor Vehicle Examiner-Petitioner was owner of bus seized by police as"case property" in consequence of a road accident-Validity-Motor vehicle detained by police may be of two types: those involved in accidents and those seized in other cases-First category is dealt with by Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which is a special law-Police Rules, 1934 are general law and are in conflict with Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965-Where driver was being prosecuted for causing hurt or death of a person by rash or negligent driving, the vehicle could not be said to have been 'used' for commission of offence within the meaning of S.516-A, Cr.P.C.-If inspection of Motor Vehicle Examiner was required, they should have got it done and returned the bus to petitioner after 48 hours but the same had not been done-High Court directed the police to return bus to petitioner as its detention was without lawful authority-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Hanif v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 746; Badshahzada v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 699; Haris Khan v. The State PLD 1993 Pesh. 146; Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition) at p.314; Understanding Statutes (Fourth Edition 2016) and Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 82, page 876) ref. Muhammad Mohsin Ghuman and others v. Government of Punjab through Home Secretary, Lahore and others 2013 SCMR 85; Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investigation Agency and others 2017 SCMR 1218; Phula Singh v. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 565; Syed Razi Shah v. The State 1971 PCr.LJ 19; Rai Bashir Ahmad v. The State 1971 PCr.LJ 255; Sheraz Elahi v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1935; Burkamal v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1110; Rana Muhammad Salim v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 750; Muhammad Rashid and others v. The State PLD 1991 Kar. 200; Karachi Bus Owners Association and another v. Inspector-General of Police and 2 others 1995 PCr.LJ 608; Sher Muhammad v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 2121; Pakistan Motors Transport Federation (Regd.) v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 3 others PLD 2004 Lah. 295 and Ajjab Khan v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1510 rel. Zaman Khan Vardag, Additional Advocate General with Asghar Ali/ASI for the State.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending