Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 255 of 1967, decided on 5th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 12th April 1967, in Writ Peti tion No. 1068 of 1965).
---S. 60 and Electoral College Rules, 1964, r. 36 (I) (I‑A)‑Election petition‑Ground that Presid ing Officer had illegally prohibited polling agent of petitioner front signing result sheet and instead permitted his son to do so Irregu larity not such as could be said to have materially affected result of election‑High Court, held, right in setting aside order of Tribunal.
Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents. .
Date of hearing : 5th October 1967.
‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan declaring void under Article 98 of the. Constitution an order of an Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the second respondent herein. The election was to the electoral college from Electoral Unit No. 1615 of Lyallpur City. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 contested this election. The petitioner polled 147 votes against 182 votes polled by the said respondent who was declared elected. The petitioner challenged the election by an election petition on various grounds but the petition was accepted on two grounds, (i) that although 132 ballot papers were issued for female voters, 144 ballot papers were actually recovered from the boxes on the female side. Thus 12 ballot papers were in excess of those issued. These must have been put in through irregular means, (ii) that the Presiding Officer had illegally prohibited the polling agent of the petitioner to act as such and instead permitted the son of the present petitioner to Sign the result sheet.
The High Court took the view that under rule 36 (1) (1‑A) of the Electoral College Rules, 1964, the election could only be set aside if the result of the election had been materially affected. The grounds relied upon by the Tribunal in the present case were, by no means, sufficient to lead to this inference, for, even if the 12 irregularly inserted ballot papers were excluded the respon dent No. 2 would still have a majority of 23 votes. The signing of lying the result sheet by the son of the petitioner was also not such an irregularity as could be said to have materially affected the result of the election, in the absence of any proof to show that the non -presence of .the polling agent had deprived the petitioner of any votes which would otherwise have been cast in his favour.
The petitioner now seeks to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the Tribunal had acted without lawful authority. But having examined the provisions of section 60 of the Electoral College Act and rule 36 (1) (1‑A) we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court rightly held that the Tribunal had acted without lawful authority in setting aside the election on the two grounds mentioned above. We see no reason, therefore, to grant special leave in this matter. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer