Sheikh BASHIR AHMAD vs RAHIMUDDIN AND Another
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the correct interpretation of Rule 34 of the Electoral College Rules, 1964. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in its application of this rule, noting that the High Court had previously expressed contradictory views on the matter in other writ petitions. The Supreme Court found that the contention raised by the petitioner merited consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, subject to the petitioner furnishing security for costs. Additionally, the Court ordered that the proceedings before the Controlling Authority, which were initiated in consequence of the High Court's order, remain stayed pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- What is the correct interpretation of Rule 34 of the Electoral College Rules, 1964?
- Does the application of Rule 34 of the Electoral College Rules, 1964, to the present case warrant further judicial review by the Supreme Court?
- Rule 34, Electoral College Rules 1964
ORDER
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The question raised in this petition for special leave to appeal from an order passed by the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction concerns the correct interpretation to be placed on Rule 34 of the Electoral College Rules, 1964. The High Court has apparently expressed contradictory views on this question, in two writ petitions. The contention raised that the High Court was in error in holding that the rule applied to the present case, merits consideration. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. The petitioner will furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,000 for costs before the appeal is set down for hearing. Proceedings , before the Controlling Authority in consequence of the order of the High Court will continue to remain under stay meanwhile.
Cited by 1 case
- RIAZUDDIN vs Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM REPRESENTED EVY LEGAL HEIRS AND 2 1985 PLD Karachi 411