Maulana Ahmad Ludhianvi Disqualified Life Time – LHC Orders
Lahore High Court has announced detail judgement in the disqualification of Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi’s case. LHC has termed that the disqualification of Mr. Ludhianvi will be life time. This decision announced in writ petition No. W.P. No. 36879 of 2016. Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi Verses Muzaffar Abbas Etc. Date of orders or proceeding is 14-12-2016.
Summary of Judgement Dated 14 December 2016
At the outset, it is apprised that petitioner did not contest election despite permission by this Court through interim order dated 28.11.2016,
2, Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he will not press this and connected petition if observations’ findings in Paragraph No. 17 of the impugned order are clarified to the extent that these shall not prejudice petitioner’s right to contest election in future.
3. The impugned judgement b. examined, which does not suggest that impugned observations, findings are meant for future as well.
4. In view of the clarification, ibid, the petitioner does not press this and connected petition, therefore, both are disposed of.
Form No:HC.10/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Cast No. W. P. No. 3.79 of 2016.
Molina Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi.
Versus Muzaffar Abbas; etc.
S.No.ofecd. Doe of order, Order with signature of Judge and that of I Proceedings Panes of counsel.
where necessary.
03. 14.12.2016. Ch. Amin Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mis Saqib Haroon Chishti and Mir Haroon Rashid, Advocates for Respondent No.1 in connected W. P No. 36881 of 2016. Ch. Muhammad Imtiax Eta., Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan..
respondents No. 2 and 3.
At the othset, it is apprised that petitioner did not contest election despite permission by this Court through interim order dr,.. 28.11.2016.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he will not press this and connected petition if obser, ations: findings in Paragraph No. 17 of the impugned order are clarified to the extent that these shall not prejudice petitiorxr’s right to contest election in future. 3. The impugned judgement is examined, which does not suggest that impugned obsmations, findings are meant for future as well.
4. In view of the clarification, ibid.
the petitioner does not press this and connected petition, therefore, both are disposed of
(Shahid JamiVIchap JuctK_
(Shahid Karim) (Faisal Zaman Khan) ludge Judge
