IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

W.P. No. /ELEC/2000

Muhammad Faheem Raza Mufti S/o Muhammad Ismail Mufti, caste

Qureshi, R/o H. No. 152 Lal Kurti, Ward No. 7 (Halqa No. 4),
Multan Cantt.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Ministry of Defence through Director General Military Lands
& Cantonments, Rawalpindi.
2. President,Cantonment Board, Multan.
3. Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Multan.
4. Sh. Nisar Ahmad S/o Ghulam Muhammad, caste Sheikh, R/o
H. No. 43/44, Ward No. 7 (Halqa No. 4) Lal Kurti, Multan.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199

Of The Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.

2. That election for Cantonments Boards were held on 30.5.98.

There was straight contest between the petitioner and
respondent No. 4 in Halqa No. 4 of Cantonment Board,
Multan. The petitioner obtained 751 votes, while the
respondent No. 4 obtained 747 votes. The petitioner was
declared as returned candidate. The result on Form-G was
 handed over to both the candidates, which was duly signed by
the Presiding Officer and also signed by both the candidates,
showing their faith and trust upon the fairness of election
process. Copy of result is Annex “A”.

3. That the petitioner received a letter No. Nil dated 28.5.98

(prepared two days before the elections) from the Returning
Officer, that the official counting shall be held on 1.6.98 at
10.00 hours, under Rule-51 of Cantonments (Elections of
Election Petition) Rules, 1995 (rule was not applicable even).
On 1.6.98 all the connivance and malafide of respondent No.
4 with election authorities was unveiled, when declared by
Election Authorities that it was a case of equal votes. The
petitioner left the office of the Returning Officer under a
depression. After some time it was heard that the respondent
No. 4 was declared returned candidate on the draw of lot.
Certainly this act of authorities was without the consent and in
the absence of the petitioner. Copy of declaration dated 1.6.98
is Annex “B”.

4. That the whole process of re-counting and return of

respondent No. 4 was challenged through an election petition,
under Rule-72 of the Cantonment (Election & Election
Petition) Rules 1995, before the District Judge, Multan/
Enquiry Officer as prescribed. The respondent No. 4,
Returning Officer and the Presiding Officer submitted their
written statements. The learned District Judge declared the
election void due to certain omissions and commissions of
Returning Officer/Presiding Officer vide his order dated
11.7.99. Copies of election petition & written statements
along-with order are Annexes “C, D, E & F”.

5. That the respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition No. 6235/98

titled “Nisar Ahmad Vs District Judge etc.”, before this
Hon’ble Court. The petitioner also filed a writ petition No.
6979/98. Both the writ petitions were fixed on 23.2.99, and
were withdrawn on the same day as per statements of counsels
 for both the parties. However, the petitioner disowned the
statement of his counsel and filed a C.M. No. 878/99 in W.P.
No. 6979/98 U/s 12 (2) C.P.C. and the same is still pending in
this Hon’ble Court.

6. That as a result of alleged withdrawal of both the writ

petitions, the respondent No. 3 announced a fresh election
schedule for Halqa No. 4 on 12.5.99. The petitioner,
respondent No. 4, Malik Muhammad Sudheer Awan and
Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti were the contesting candidates. The
petitioner remained the returned candidate by obtaining 747
votes, when the nearest rival, respondent No. 4 obtained 693
votes. Form-J in this respect is Annex “G”.

7. That a letter No. 45/21/Budget/ML&C/98/1784/D-12/ML&C

/99 dated 9.6.99 was received to the respondent No. 3 in
which the petitioner was notified as “ELECTED MEMBER”.
But again respondent No. 4 started an unfair game and
submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 in which
certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and as a
result the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice U/s 34 (4)
of the Cantonments Act, 1924 on 25.6.99 vide No. 5/2/Admn/
99/2101(even not according to law) along-with the application
submitted by respondent No. 4. However, the petitioner
replied the said notice on 2.7.99. Again a Show Cause Notice
No. 5/2/Admn/99 dated 9.8.99 for inquiry, was issued by
respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared
before the respondent No. 2 on 11.8.99 as fixed, along-with
the witnesses but the evidence of no one was recorded. Copies
of letter dated 9.6.99, Show Cause Notice, copy of
application, reply to Show Cause Notice and Show Cause
Notice dated 9.8.99 are Annexes “H, J, K, L & M”.

8. That the result of proceedings under the said Show Cause

Notice was however awaited, but in the meantime, the
petitioner was intimated through a letter No.
2/11/Admn/99/3148 dated 4.10.99 to attend the Special
 Meeting of Cantonment Board, scheduled on 12.10.99 and the
petitioner took oath in this meeting also. Vide letter No.
2/11/Admn/99/3625 dated 6.11.99, the membership of all the
members of Cantonment Board, Multan was suspended till
further orders. Copy of letter dated 4.10.99 a press cutting and
letter dated 6.11.99 are Annexes “N, O & P”.

9. That the people of locality drawn the attention of petitioner to

a news item published in the newspapers for the
disqualification of the petitioner, on which the petitioner
submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 on
31.7.2000, who endorsed a copy of letter No. 45/21/
BUDGET/ML&C/98/4/4/D-6(A-VI)2000 dated 21.7.2000
through which the petitioner came to know about the
disqualification. Copy of application along-with impugned
Notification is Annex “Q & R”.

10. That the action of disqualification and disqualification of

petitioner vide letter No. 45/21/BUDGET/ML&C/98/4/4/D-
6(A-VI)2000 dated 21.7.2000 is liable to be set aside inter alia
on the following: -

GROUNDS

(i) That the action of disqualification of petitioner and

disqualification is against the law of equity and natural
justice.

(ii) That the action of disqualification and disqualification

is against the law and facts of the case.

(iii) That the action of disqualification and disqualification

of petitioner is based on the personal enmity of
respondent No. 4 and biased proceedings of respondent
No. 2.

(iv) That no evidence was recorded during the inquiry and

no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to
the petitioner. This conduct of respondent No. 2 is
 enough to vitiate all the proceedings against the
petitioner.

(v) That the witnesses of the petitioner were not recorded

by the respondent No. 2, inspite of hectic efforts of the
petitioner.

(vi) That the petitioner is condemned unheard, and in such

situation action taken against the petitioner is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

(vii) That even no opportunity of personal hearing was

afforded to the petitioner and for the same the petitioner
submitted many applications to respondent No. 1 and
opportunity of personal hearing was given to the
petitioner but due to the bias attitude of respondent No.
2, not attention and consideration was given to the
petitioner.

(viii) That the action of disqualification and disqualification

of the petitioner is a result of conspiracy and
connivance between respondent No. 2 & 4.

(ix) That the application (Annex “K”) submitted by

respondent No. 4 does not contain any allegation falling
in preview of Sec. 15-BB of The Cantonment Act,
1924, even in this application allegations leveled
against the petitioner are general in nature.

(x) That after the suspension of membership in view of

letter No. 2/11/ADMN/99/3625 dated 6.11.99 (Annex
“P”) issued by respondent No. 3, the action of
disqualification and disqualification of the petitioner
has no weight in the eyes of law, rather illegal and
unlawful.

(xi) That the action of respondents and by the

disqualification, a great miscarriage of justice is caused
to the petitioner.
 It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the
instant petition may please be accepted and
proceedings taken against the petitioner, action of
disqualification and disqualification of the
petitioner vide letter No. 45/21/BUDGET/
ML&C/98/4/4/D-6(A-VI)2000 dated 21.7.2000
may please be declared null and void, illegal,
unlawful and ultra vires. It is further prayed that
the membership of the petitioner may please be
restored.

Any other writ, order, direction or relief,

which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please
be granted in the interest of justice.

Humble Petitioner

Dated: __________

Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.

CERTIFICATE: -

As per instructions of my client, no

such petition has earlier been filed
before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No. /ELEC/2000

Muhammad Faheem Raza Vs Ministry of Defence etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Faheem Raza Mufti S/o Muhammad Ismail
Mufti, caste Qureshi, R/o H. No. 152 Lal Kurti, Ward
No. 7 (Halqa No. 4), Multan Cantt.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above petition are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of September 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No. /ELEC/2000

Muhammad Faheem Raza Vs Ministry of Defence etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copies of Annexures “A, B & G to P”
are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of
the same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONER

Dated: __________

Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No. /ELEC/2000

Muhammad Faheem Raza Vs Ministry of Defence etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION

AFFIDAVIT of: -
S/o , caste , R/o , Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of September 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No. /ELEC/2000

Muhammad Faheem Raza Vs Ministry of Defence etc.

INDEX
S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Copy of result & letter dated 28.5.98. A & A/1
6 Copy of declaration dated 1.6.98. B
7 Copies of election petition & written C, D, E & F
statements along-with order.
8 Copy of Form-J. G
9 Copy of letter dated 9.6.99. H
10 Copy Show Cause Notice. J
11 Copy of application. K
12 Reply to Show Cause Notice. L
13 Show Cause Notice dated 9.8.99 M
14 Copy of letter dated 4.10.99. N
15 Press cutting. O
16 Copy of letter dated 6.11.99. P
17 Copy of impugned Notification along- Q&R
with application.
18 Dispensation Application.
19 Affidavit.
20 Vakalatnama.
PETITIONER
Dated: __________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
28-District Courts, Multan.