MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ATTOCK And Another
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was instituted as a writ of quo warranto challenging the election and entitlement of respondent No. 2 to a peasant seat of Union Council Qatbal, Fateh Jang, on the ground of disqualification. During proceedings, a compromise between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was reported. The core legal questions were whether a writ of quo warranto concerning usurpation of a public office can be disposed of or compromised by private settlement, and how judicial discretion must be exercised upon proof of disqualification. The Lahore High Court held that a public office cannot be the subject matter of barter or private compromise. As it was conceded that respondent No. 2 held land disqualifying him from being a peasant member, the Court retained a duty to prevent an unqualified person from holding public office. Declaring the election illegal, the Court laid down that judicial discretion must be exercised reasonably and not to perpetuate an unlawful usurpation of public office.
- Can a writ petition in the nature of quo warranto be dismissed or settled on the basis of a private compromise between the parties?
- Whether the High Court has a duty to proceed with an inquiry in quo warranto proceedings once an unqualified person is shown to hold a public office, irrespective of a private settlement?
- Can the judicial discretion of the High Court in a writ of quo warranto be exercised to decline interference where usurpation of a public office is established?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
1. Facts of the case are simple and principle of law applicable to them not obscure. Respondent No.2.
2. Was elected to a peasant scat of Union Council Qatbal on 16-1-1992. Petitioner submitted an application under Article 199 of the Constitution in nature of a quo-warranto against respondent No.2 for having him deseated on the ground that he did not qualify to be elected as peasant- Member of the Union Council. Respondent No.2 submitted a return and defended his title to the seat. On 11-4-1992, learned counsel for the parties reported a compromise. Since it was a case in quo warranto, despite private settlement between a relator and holder of a public office, the Court decided to proceed further with the inquiry. Mian Inam-ul-Haq, Advocate was asked to assist the Court, independent of stated compromise by his client with respondent No.2.
3. It is common ground and unreservedly conceded by learned counsel for respondent No.2, that respondent No.2, in view of his ownership of the land in village during the preceding rive years was not qualified to be a peasant-Member of the Union Council. Public office cannot be a subject I matter of barter or private compromise between the parties. It is the duty of," the Court, as soon as its attention is drawn to the fact that a person who is not qualified is holding a public office, to declare that he is not entitled hat office and to prevent him from acting as such. A usurper of public office could not be perpetuated in it. This view is too well-settled to require any support, from decided case law. If any reference is needed, recourse could be usefully had to cases in Kashinath Laxman Bhide and others v. The State of Bombay AIR 1954 Bombay 41. The University of Mysore v.
4. Govinda. Rao ana another AIR 1965 Supreme Court 491. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that writ of quo-warranto was in the discretion of the Court, and, upon settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the Court must not interfere. It is no doubt true that the matter for interference in writ jurisdiction C lay in the discretion but discretion like all judicial power was regulated b., sound reason. When once the Court is satisfied of usurpation of public office by its holder, it shall be an unwise and also improper exercise of discretion to D refrain from interference.
5. In view of aforesaid, writ petition is allowed and election of respondent No.2 as a peasant member of Union Council Qatbal of Tehsil Fatch Jang is declared to be illegal. Consequence of. It would be that respondent No.2 shall not be treated as a validly returned Peasant Member of the aforesaid Union Council. Since disqualification ~ was conceded, there shall be no order as to costs of writ petition in this Court.
6. A.AA/M-352/L
Cited by 4 cases
- TANVIR ASHRAF vs Ch. RIASAT ALI and 5 others 2004 YLR 659
- OWAIS AHMAD vs CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER and 23 others 2002 YLR 1048
- Syed ZAMIRUDDIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Education, Karachi and 2 others 1997 PLD Karachi 285
- Syed SAGHEER HUSSAIN vs AK GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarbad and 3 others 2004 PLC (C.S) 1248