MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the qualification of a Zilla Council member who was a depot-holder. The core legal question was whether the respondent remained disqualified as a depot-holder at the time of filing nomination papers, given that he had submitted a resignation that had not yet been formally accepted by the Food Department. The High Court had held that the relationship was one of principal and agent, and since the respondent had expressed an intention to resign, he was effectively relieved of the agency regardless of formal acceptance, thus removing the disqualification. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the controversy was no longer live. The Court noted that subsequent legislative changes via Ordinance IV of 1981 had removed the disqualification for depot-holders, rendering any further adjudication academic and futile. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction when the underlying legal controversy has been resolved by subsequent legislation, making the requested relief practically valueless.
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying legal controversy has been rendered academic by subsequent legislation?
- Is the relationship between a depot-holder and the Food Department considered one of principal and agent such that resignation is effective upon expression of intent?
- Can a constitutional petition challenging a member's qualification be dismissed if the disqualification has been removed by a subsequent change in law?
- Ordinance IV of 1981
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a registered voter of village Toleka, tehsil and district Gujranwala, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-10- 1980 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him challenging the qualification of respondent No.1 to be a member of the Zilla Council, Gujranwala, on the ground that he was depot-holder was dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 1 was admittedly a depot-holder and according to the law then in the field not qualified to be a member of the Zilla Council. However, it appears that he submitted his resignation from that position on 4-6-1979 though the resignation was not accepted by the time the nomination papers came to be filed on 12-12-1979. The learned Judges in the High Court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto as was sought by the petitioner on the following grounds-- "The facts as given above would go to show that the respondent had already expressed his intention not to carry on the agency. It was not a job of a nature in which his resignation was subject to any acceptance. The relationship between the Food Department and the respondent was that of a principal and an agent and the moment the respondent expressed his intention not to carry on the agency he stood relieved of the agency. It is to be noted that there is no provision in the rules that a depot-holder cannot abandon the depot or that the same is subject to any acceptance by the Food Department. There is even no provision for notice. The respondent thus was not a depot-holder on the date of his nomination or becoming a member and so not disqualified. "
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acceptance of the resignation was necessary and till it was accepted the petitioner could not be considered eligible and, in fact, was not eligible on the date when he filed his nomination paper. The dis--qualification should have been given effect to and the respondent should' have been unseated.
4. The petition does not disclose a live controversy. It is admitted that by a subsequent change in the law (Ord. IV of 1981) to avoid such litigation and to end the disqualification, this disqualification was done away with. In view of a clearer statement of law and the public policy it cannot now be said that the order of the High Court requires interference, for the exercise would be academic and futile, and of no practical value. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.