Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition Nos. 707, 708 and 806 of 1981, decided on 26th May, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 21, 21‑A & 24 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑ Election ‑ Election petitions containing full particulars of corrupt and illegal practices and other illegal acts alleged to have been committed during election‑Held: Petitions fall under S. 24 of Ordinance and as such within jurisdiction of Election Tribunal Order of Election Tribunal not considering matters falling under S. 24, set aside‑Case remanded for decision of causes of action grounded in S. 24 as contained in petitions but not in respect of causes of action founded in S. 21‑A.

Athar Rehman for Petitioner.

S. A. Sahgal for Respondent No. 1.

Dates of hearing : 25th and 26th May, 1982.

‑‑‑ This judgment will dispose of three constitutional petitions, namely, Muhammad Din v. Maqsood Ahmad and another Petition No. 707 of 1981 Nawab Din v. Abdul Rashid and others (Writ Petition No. 708 of 1981), and Mian Muhammad Shai v. Malik Bashir and others (Writ Petition No. 806 of 1981). In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgments of the Election Tribunal, Vehari, whereby their election petitions were held to be incompetent on the ground that they related to causes of action covered by section 21‑A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and that since they were not presented before the Election Authority, as required by subsection (3) of section 21 of the said Ordinance, and thereafter, transferred to him by the Election Authority, the same were incompetent.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three petitions is that their election petitions not only covered the grounds contained in section 21‑A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, but also other grounds covered by sections 17 and 24 of the said Ordinance, read with rule 5 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, and that therefore the petitions, to the extent that they covered grounds relating to corrupt end illegal practices or other illegal acts alleged to have been committed during the elections, were properly filed and were competent before the Election Tribunal.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in the three writ petitions and have also perused the record. In Muhammad Din's case (W. P. 707/81), the election petition filed before the Election Tribunal, Vehari, which is lodged with the petition as Annexure 'A', clearly shows that the ground covered by para. 2 (a) relates to cause of action falling under section 21‑A of the Ordinance, whereas those stated in para. 2 (b) to (j) relate to corrupt and illegal practices and other illegal acts alleged to have been committed during the election, which could be competently tried by the Election Tribunal under section 24 of the Ordinance. In Nawab Din's case (W. P. 708/81), the election petition filed before the Election Tribunal, Vehari, which is lodged with the petition as Annexure 'A', clearly shows that the grounds covered by para. 2(a) and (b) relate to cause of action falling under section 21‑A of the Ordinance, whereas these stated in para. 2(b) to (g) relate to corrupt and illegal practices and other illegal acts alleged to have been committed during the election, which could be competently tried by the Election Tribunal under section 24 of the Ordinance. In Mian Muhammad Shafi's case (W. P. 806/81), the election petition filed before the Election Tribunal Vehari, which is lodged with the petition as Annexure A', clearly shows that the grounds covered by para. 2 (a) and (f) relate to cause of action falling under section 21‑A of the Ordinance, whereas those stated in para. 2 (b) to (g) and (j) relate to corrupt and illegal practices and other acts alleged to have been committed during the election, which could be competently tried by the Election Tribunal under section 24 of the Ordinance. The relief prayed in each of the three petitions only calls for a declaration to declare the election of the concerned respondent as void and the relevant petitioner to have been elected in his stead or a re‑election to be ordered. In no petition has any petitioner claimed the relief available under subsection (2) of section 21‑A of the Ordinance, namely, that the elected candidate be disqualified for a period of four years, as envisaged by the said subsection. In short, what appears is that the three petitions mainly contain full particulars of corrupt and illegal ‑ practices and other illegal acts alleged to have been committed during the elections, which were covered by section 24 of the Ordinance, and which matters were within the competence and jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to decide. It is true that certain grounds relative to section 21‑A are also alleged in the petitions in respect of which the Election Tribunal need not have given decision. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal, Vehari, in each of the three petitions is illegal and without lawful authority.

4. For the foregoing reasons, all the three petitions are accepted and the impugned orders passed by the Election Tribunal, Vehari, to the extent to which they cover grounds permissible and within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to decide under section 24 of the Ordinance, are illegal and without lawful authority and are hereby set aside. The three petitions are now remanded back to the Election Tribunal, Vehari, with the direction that it may now deal with the same to the extent to which causes of action grounded in section 24 of the Ordinance are contained in the said petitions. The Tribunal need not take cognizance of causes of action founded in section 21‑A of the Ordinance. In view of the peculiar nature of these cases, the parties shall bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. Petitions accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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