ILLAHI BAKHSH SAMR00 And Others vs REGISTRAR, SOCIETIES And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Constitution petition regarding the election of the President of respondent No. 2 Institution on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The first petitioner's nomination paper had been rejected due to delayed receipt of consent, leading to the unopposed election of respondent No. 3. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a Constitution petition filed in the nature of a writ of quo warranto can be dismissed by the High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the plea regarding the nature of the petition as a writ of quo warranto and its jurisdictional implications deserves consideration. The Court ordered that the appeal be heard on the existing record and extended the interim order previously passed.
- Can a Constitution petition filed in the nature of a writ of quo warranto be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction?
- Whether the rejection of a nomination paper due to delayed consent warrants interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.--This petition relates to election to the post of President of respondent No. 2 Institution. Among three candidates who filed nomination papers, one withdrew his candidature, first petitioner's nomination paper was rejected on the ground that his consent was received one day late and respondent No. 3 was declared as elected unopposed.
2. Petitioners challenged the result of the election in a Constitution petition in Sind High Court but it was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
3. Mr. N.A. Faruqui learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, inter alia, submits that the High Court has failed to notice that constitution petition filed by petitioners was virtually in the nature of a writ o quo warranto, and it could not, therefore, be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
4. This plea amongst others deserves consideration. Leave is granted. Security Rs. 1,000.
5. The appeal will be heard on the present record at an early date, but it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
6. Interim order passed by this Court on 17-7-1984 shall continue till appeal is decided.