MUHAMMAD TAHIR NIZAMI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services, Regula

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR NIZAMI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination Islamabad Ss. 9(3) & 9(5)---Unanai, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic System Medicine Rules, 1980, Rr. 15 & 21(2)---Elections of the National Council for Homoepathy---Sitting members---Eligibility---Petitioners were aggrieved by the failure of Returning Officer (respondent) for conducting elections of the National Council for Homoepathy ('Council'), in deciding objections filed by the petitioner against the eligibility of (two) respondents to contest the election as Members of the Council---Plea of the petitioners was that pursuant to S. 9(3) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 ('the Act 1965') the members were eligible for re-nomination or re-election to the Council on the expiry of the prescribed term---Contention of the respondents/candidates was that it was imperative to determine the intent of the legislature in S. 9(3) of the Act 1965, which was permissive and not prohibitive for members to be re-nominated or re-elected---Question whether S. 9 of the Act, 1965 allowed sitting members of the Council to contest the election to serve on a successive Council---Held, that S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 determined the eligibility of members for re-nomination or re-election to the Council and plainly provided that members of the Council shall be eligible for re-nomination or re-election "on the expiry of the prescribed term"---Term of the Council was prescribed by R. 15 of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic System Medicine Rules, 1980 ('the Rules, 1980') as a five-year period---If a member of the Council was only eligible for re-nomination or re-election upon expiry of the prescribed term of five years, the election of the successive Council under S. 9(5) of the Act, 1965 read together with R. 18 of the Rules, 1980 would have already taken place by the time the term of office of such member expired---Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Act, 1965 read with R. 15 of the Rules, 1980 provide that a member will serve out a five-year term and will cease to hold office upon expiry of such five-year period---Section 9(5) of the Act 1965 then mandates that the election of successive Council must be held three months prior to the expiry of the term of the Council---If S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 was read in such manner, as was contented by the respondents, the said section would become redundant---Section 9(3) of the Act, 1965 clearly stated that members became eligible for re-nomination or re-election on expiry of their five-year term---If that was what the legislature had intended, instead of using the words "on expiry of the term" it could simply have written "prior to the expiry of the prescribed term", or better still it could simply have omitted S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 or stated that members of the Council were eligible for re-nomination or re-election---Even from a policy perspective it was hard to accord S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965, the meaning being accorded by the respondents under the doctrine of purposive interpretation---Intent of the legislature as evident from S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 read together with S. 9(5) was to create a cooling-off period for the incumbent members of a Council and enable other members to be elected as members of the Council---It could not be presumed that this was not the intent of the legislature and in order to make sense of S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 the Court must read into the said subsection what was not provided therein---Where it appears that the words used by the legislature are unambiguous, it is not for the Court to read into the statute and give it a meaning that does not flow from the ordinary meaning of the words used---Plain reading of S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 read together with the other subsections of S. 9 provided that the members of a Council were not eligible for re-election till after the expiry of their five year term by which time the election of the successive Council would already have been convened---Consequently, the Returning Officer/respondent could not have accepted the nomination papers for respondents/candidates to contest elections of the successive Council, which were being convened at a time when their term in office had not expired and they were incumbent members of the Council---Respondents were ,therefore, ineligible to contest the election and the acceptance of their nomination papers was in breach of S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965---Acceptance of nomination papers of respondents is declared to be unlawful---Returning Officer will remove the names of respondents and the names of any other members of the Council whose term as members of the Council had not expired, and issue an updated list of valid nominations for purposes of R. 22 of the Rules, 1980---Returning Officer (respondent) will proceed to issue a revised schedule of the next steps to be followed for purposes of convening the election in accordance with the Rules, 1980---Returning Officer (respondent) will ensure that the election is convened and a Council is in place prior to the expiry of the term of the incumbent Council as required by S. 9(5) of the Act, 1965---Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR NIZAMI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination Islamabad Ss — 2025 CLC 943 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC