MUZAFFAR KHAN vs CHANNA N KHAN AND 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that quashed the actions of a Controlling Authority regarding the resignation of a Union Council Chairman and the subsequent election of a successor. The High Court had relied on the precedent set in A. K. Fazal Qader Chowdhury v. Syed Shah Nawaz (PLD 1966 SC 105) to invalidate these proceedings. The petitioner contends that the High Court failed to consider the doctrine of acquiescence, specifically noting that the respondent had participated in the subsequent election for the Chairman's seat—which he lost to the petitioner—before challenging the resignation and election process via a writ petition. The Supreme Court found that the issue of acquiescence raised by the petitioner constituted a substantial legal question that was not addressed in the precedent relied upon by the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent's participation in the fresh election precluded him from later challenging the validity of the resignation and the subsequent election process.
- Does participation in a subsequent election after the resignation of a Chairman constitute acquiescence that bars a later challenge to that resignation?
- Can a writ petition be maintained to challenge an election process if the petitioner has already participated in and lost the subsequent election?
ORDER
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-The High Court has issued a writ to quash the. Action. Of a Controlling Authority in accepting the resignation from the Chairmanship of a Union Council of the respondent Channan Khan, as well as the election of the 'present petitioner Mazaffar Khan which followed the vacation of the Chairman's seat. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of A. K.
2. Fazal Qader Chowdhury v. Syed Shah Nawaz (P LD 1966SC105).
3. It is urged for the petitioner that the High Court has ignored the following facts, establishing acquiescence in the acceptance of the resignation, vie. That following such acceptance, a fresh election was held, in which Channan Khan participated, and lost against the present petitioner. It was thereafter that the writ petition was filed.
4. The point raised is one of substance. It did not arise in the Supreme Court case on which reliance has been placed.
5. We grant leave as prayed. Security-Rs. 1,000.