AGL40▲ 0 (0.00%)AIRLINK129.06▼ -0.47 (0.00%)BOP6.75▲ 0.07 (0.01%)CNERGY4.49▼ -0.14 (-0.03%)DCL8.55▼ -0.39 (-0.04%)DFML40.82▼ -0.87 (-0.02%)DGKC80.96▼ -2.81 (-0.03%)FCCL32.77▲ 0 (0.00%)FFBL74.43▼ -1.04 (-0.01%)FFL11.74▲ 0.27 (0.02%)HUBC109.58▼ -0.97 (-0.01%)HUMNL13.75▼ -0.81 (-0.06%)KEL5.31▼ -0.08 (-0.01%)KOSM7.72▼ -0.68 (-0.08%)MLCF38.6▼ -1.19 (-0.03%)NBP63.51▲ 3.22 (0.05%)OGDC194.69▼ -4.97 (-0.02%)PAEL25.71▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PIBTL7.39▼ -0.27 (-0.04%)PPL155.45▼ -2.47 (-0.02%)PRL25.79▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PTC17.5▼ -0.96 (-0.05%)SEARL78.65▼ -3.79 (-0.05%)TELE7.86▼ -0.45 (-0.05%)TOMCL33.73▼ -0.78 (-0.02%)TPLP8.4▼ -0.66 (-0.07%)TREET16.27▼ -1.2 (-0.07%)TRG58.22▼ -3.1 (-0.05%)UNITY27.49▲ 0.06 (0.00%)WTL1.39▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

LHC dismisses petition seeking restoration of Punjab Assembly

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

Petitioner fined Rs100,000 for ‘overburdening’ court

The Lahore High Court dismissed on Monday a plea seeking restoration of the Punjab Assembly as non-maintainable and fined the petitioner Rs 1,00,000 for ‘overburdening’ court.

A citizen Sharafat Ali had filed a petition at the high court contending that then chief minister Punjab Chaudhry Pervez Elahi had sent the advice for the dissolution of the provincial assembly illegally and unconstitutionally with malafide intent.

During the proceedings, however, Justice Shahid Karim expressed his displeasure over the application. “Courts are overburdened by such petitions,” the LHC judge said.

The petitioner was also fined Rs. 100,000 by the court as his plea was set aside.

The plea stressed that the advice sent by Elahi did not give any reason for the dissolution of the Punjab Assembly when being public functionary of the highest order and while exercising any authority or giving any advice, it is necessary that written reasons be given in the advice.

Citing the Supreme Court case titled “Nawaz Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan”, the petitioner said that the opinion formed by the president must be based on concrete grounds.

The apex court had held that opinion must be formed objectively before powers under 58 (2) (b) can be exercised. “Opinion should be so objective that nothing should be left to surmises, likes and dislikes in the process of opinion forming,” the court had held.

Related Posts

Get Alerts