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.
Constitutional Petition No. D‑55 of 1981, decided on 25th August 1981.
‑‑ Rr. 67 & 68‑Rejection of petition‑Petition filed without verifica tion on oath as required under r. 67‑Held: Election Authority competent to reject petition and not Election Tribunal‑Term Election Authority' in r. 68 used in contrast to Election Tribunal‑Power to Election Authority under r. 68(1) to dismiss petition on account of non‑compliance with provisions of preceding Rules cannot be exercised by Election Tribunal.‑[Interpretation of statutes].
Muhammad Rafique Khanzada for Petitioner.
Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Add]. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 25th August 1981.
.‑This petition is directed against the order dated 3rd January 1981 passed by Syed Ali Madad Shah, District Judge Hyderabad in Election Petition No. 15 of 1979.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent 1 Subrab son of Dhani Bux filed legal objections dated 26‑8‑1980 on the following grounds;
(1) That the petition as framed is not maintainable for want of manda tory notice to the respondent under rule 66(b) of the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979.
(2) That the petitioner has violated rules 66 and 67.
(3) The election is barred by law.
Before the Election Tribunal it was contended that under rule 66, clause (b) a copy of the petition was to be served on the candidate against whom the petition was to be filed. The above contention was repelled by the learned Election Tribunal, in view of the language employed in rule E6 which does not provide the time for the service of the copy of the Election Petition. It was therefore held that the copy of the Election Petition could be served, even after filing of the same.
The next contention which was advanced before the learned Election Tribunal was that the verification of application was not on oath in terms of rule 67. The above contention was also rejected on the ground that under rule 67, it is the Election Authority which can reject the Election Petition for non‑compliance of the provisions of rule 67 under rule 68. No other argument was advanced before the learned Election Tribunal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Rafique Khanzada, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions;
(1) That in any case the learned Election Tribunal should have rejected the petition as admittedly there was no verification of the petition on oath as was required under rule 67.
In our view, the above contention is devoid of any force as rule 68 refers to the Election Authority which is competent to reject the petition for non compliance of the provisions of rule 67 and not the Election Tribunal. A perusal of the rules from 68 onwards, will indicate that the term "Election Authority" has been used in contrast to the Election Tribunal and, therefore, if the power is given to the Election Authority under rule 68(1) to dismiss the petition on account of non‑compliance with the provision of the preceding Rules, the same cannot be exercised by the Election Tribunal. We do not se any merit in the above petition. The same is dismissed, but there will be n order as to costs. The Election Tribunal shall proceed with the Election Petition on merits.
M. Y M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer