Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 1107 and 1376 of 1984, decided on 30th September, 1984.

---Art. 9--Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, r.12(c)--Election of Union Council- Doubts arising about exact number of valid votes--Election Tribunal after fresh count of votes, held, was competent to determine whether some of votes counted by it were valid or invalid and then gave its decision--Election Tribunal expressing doubts about exact number of valid votes while counting ballot-papers and not performing its duty but declaring whole of election as void--Case remanded to Tribunal for disposing it of afresh.

Abdul Sattar Chughtai for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 30th September, 1984.

-- This order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 1107 of 1984 and Writ Petition No. 1376 of 19'84, as they arise out of the same order passed by Election Tribunal Bhakkar on 28-2-1984.

2. Ghulam Nasir Jang Sher and Muhammad Iqbal contested the elections for Unit No. 2, Union Council Dagar Qureshi, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The votes were counted more than once, but finally Jang Sher was declared elected The count was as follows:-

Jang Sher = 151

Ghulam Nasir = 149

Muhammad Iqbal = 118

3. Not being satisfied with the result, Ghulam Nasir brought an election petition before the Deputy Commissioner/ Election Tribunal, Bhakkar. The Tribunal counted the votes again and found them as follows: -

Jang Sher = 149

Ghulam Nasir = 151

Muhammad Iqbal = 118

He, however, did not declare Ghulam Nasir elected and instead held that the whole election was void, as according to him, due to the carelessness of the polling staff, it was not possible to fix the exact number of valid votes of each candidate. Ghulam Nasir and Jong Sher have both challenged these orders.

4. The Election Tribunal found that while 418 ballots were found in the ballot-boxes, there was evidence that only 379 ballot-papers were issued. This conclusion, however, does not find support from the record. The Tribunal took note of only four ballot books issued and not the fifth one which was presumably also issued. Books Nos. 2173, 2174, 2175 and 2177 were referred to, but book No. 2176, falling within the same series has not been accounted for. This book is not available in the record now, but that by itself is no reason to believe that no ballot-papers were issued from book No. 2176.

5. The Election Tribunal has expressed doubts about the exact number of valid votes cast for each candidate as he found that out of the ballot-papers counted by him, many contained marks, yet they were not declared invalid by the Presiding Officer. He also found that the cancelled votes in respect of each candidate were not kept separately for checking. This, in our view, should present no difficulty. The Tribunal after a fresh count of the votes, was itself competent to determine whether some of the votes counted by it were valid or invalid and then give his decision. This duty he has failed to perform. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal for disposing it of afresh in view of the above observations.

M.Y.H. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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