Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1864 of 1964, decided on 25th October 1965.

S. 58 read with Constitu tion of Pakistan (1962); Arts. 171(1)(a) & 98‑Election dispute Words "no dispute shall‑be decided otherwise than under such law" and "validity of an election should not be called in question except in accordance with such law" occurring in Art. 171(1) of Constitu tion of Pakistan (1962)‑Electoral College Act, 1964 is the "law" made in pursuance of Art. 171 of Constitution‑Dispute relating to acceptance of candidate's nomination paper High Court's jurisdic tion to adjudicate such question under Art. 98 of Constitution Barred‑Electoral College Act (IV of 1964), Ss. 21, 23 & 24.

The term "finally" used in clause (a) of sub‑Article (1) of Article 171 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1962) constitutes in un-mistakable terms a bar to the jurisdiction of Courts to entertain disputes specified therein and so does its clause (b). But the matter has not been left is that domain. The bar is repeated in two different manners.. Firstly, "no dispute shall be decided otherwise than under such law", and secondly, "the validity of an election shall not be called in question except in accordance with such law". Such law of course refers to provi sions to be made by "law" for determination of disputes by the Commissioner or Election Commission under clause (a) and a Tribunal under clause (b) of Article 171 (1) of the Constitution. The Electoral College Act, 1964 is the law made in pursuance of Article 171 of the Constitution. Where, therefore, a dispute related to the acceptance of a candidate's nomination paper it was held that such a dispute falls under clause (b), of Article 171 of the Constitution and, therefore; the High Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on such a question in writ petition under Art. 98 of the Constitution was barred.

Dost Muhammad Malik v. The Returning Officer and Sarfraz Khan Malik P L D 1965 Lah. 560 ref.

Malik Amjad Hussain for Petitioner.

S. H. Kadri for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 25th October 1965.

Baqra petitioner and Muhammad Yousaf respondent No. 1 were candidates for election to the Electoral College from Electoral Unit No. 63, Ward No. 702, Chak No. 205/J. b Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang. The date for filing the nomination papers was the 15th of October 1964, and for scrutiny 17th October 1964. Both the parties filed their nomination papers, which were accepted by the Returning Officer on 17th October 1964.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he objected to respondent No. 1 being a candidate for election to the Electoral College on the ground that he was below 25 years of age, since his date of birth is 3rd October 1940, but the Returning Officer over‑ruled the objection. A Copy of the order of the Returning Officer has not, however, been filed, but the respondent in his written statement has denied that the petitioner raised any objection.

3. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan praying that the order of the Returning Officer holding respondent No. 1 to be a qualified person to participate in the election is without lawful authority and that the petitioner has consequently not been elected as member of the said electoral unit.

4. In support of the petition, the petitioner relied on a copy of birth entry of Muhammad Yousaf, son of Ahmad, son of Pathana, Kaliar of Chak No. 205, which shows that he was born on the 3rd of October 1940 and Mst. Roshnai was the midwife, who delivered him. We recorded the statement of respondent No. 1, who admitted that he was Ahmad, son of Pathana and Mst. Roshna, as midwife, brought him into this world, but claimed that he was born in 1939. We called upon the parties to lead evidence as to the age of respondent, as under Article 158 of the Constitution of Pakistan "persons enrolled on the electoral roll for an electoral unit shall, in accordance with law from time to time elect from amongst themselves a person who is not less than twenty‑five years of age, who shall be known as the Elector for that unit." Since then the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with an election dispute has been gone into by a Full Bench, of which we were members, in Dose Muhammad Malik v. The Returning Officer and Sarfraz Khan Malik (P L D 1965 Lah. 560). In this case we held that the term "finally" used in clause (a) of sub‑Article (1) of Article 171 of the Constitu tion constitutes in unmistakable terms a bar to the jurisdic tion of Courts to entertain disputes specified therein and so does clause (b), but the matter has not been left in that domain. The bar is repeated in two different manners. Firstly, "no dispute shall be decided otherwise than under such law", A and secondly, "the validity .of an election shall not be called in question except in accordance with such law." Such law of course refers to provisions to be made by "law" for determination of disputes by the Commissioner or Election commission under clause (a) and a Tribunal under clause (b). The Electoral College Act is the law made in pursuance of Article 171 of the, Constitution.

5. The dispute in the present case relates to the acceptance of respondent's nomination paper, which falls under clause (b) of Article 171 (1) of the Constitution, and our jurisdiction to B adjudicate on it is barred: The relevant law is enacted in the Electoral College Act. Its 58th section provides that no election shall‑ be set aside except by an election petition under subsection (2) and under its section 59 the dispute had to be resolved by an election tribunal, appointed for the purpose. It is not denied that such Tribunals were set up and election petitions were invited. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute.

6. For the reasons given above, we hold that we have no jurisdiction to deal with the election dispute of the nature which has been raised before us. We, therefore, dismiss this petition, but make no order as to costs.

K. B. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.