Raja AMIR ZAMAN vs NASIRUDDIN Alias BHOLA AND 2 OTHRERS
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had restrained authorities from announcing the results of an election in which the petitioner was a candidate for the position of Councilor. The core legal question was whether the High Court's discretionary order, which allowed the election to proceed but prohibited the declaration of results pending the resolution of a constitutional petition by a larger bench, was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's impugned order fell within its discretionary jurisdiction and did not violate any established law or principle. The Court reasoned that the petitioner would have the opportunity to present his arguments regarding the issues referred to the Full Bench during the subsequent hearing of the writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's exercise of discretion in regulating the election process was appropriate under the circumstances.
- Can the High Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to restrain the announcement of election results pending the resolution of a constitutional petition?
- Is an order by a Division Bench of the High Court to refer a matter to a larger bench subject to interference by the Supreme Court if it involves the exercise of discretion?
- Does the restraint on declaring election results constitute a valid exercise of the High Court's power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from order, dated 28-2-19:1, of the Lahore High Court whereby a Division Bench considering the importance of the question involved in a Constitutional petition requested the learned Chief Justice of that Court to constitute a larger Bench.
2. The learned counsel for the present petitioner (respondent No. 3 before the High Court), as explained by the learned counsel, had prayed before the Division Bench that he having been elected as a Councilor, the autho--rities concerned be permitted to declare the official results. The Bench in the circumstances rejected the prayer and affirmed the earlier order passed by a learned Single Judge on 7-7-1980, to the effect that although the election might take place, its result would not be announced.
3. When questioned as to what is the real grievance of the petitioner in connection with which this petition for leave to appeal has been filed, learned counsel stated that the petitioner wants that his result as a Councilor should be declared so that he may function as such. The learned counsel also contended that the point noted by the learned Division Bench of the High Court in the order of reference could not be examined in the juris--diction conferred on the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitu--tion.
4. The impugned order in so far as it restrained the authorities concerned from declaring the result of the election was within discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court. The exercise of discretion is not against any law or principle. And the petitioner would be entitled to put forward his point of view with regard to the question referred to the Full Bench at the time of the hearing of the Writ Petition.
5. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.