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.
Writ Petition No. 161 of 1984/BWP. decided on 25th November, 1984.
---S. 24--Election Tribunal finding elected member of Union Council above 25 years of age and dismissing election petition filed by defeated candidate observing that order of Returning Officer regarding age of returned candidate was final--Held, such order of Returning Officer was not final but since Tribunal had found returned candidate above 25 years of age,. no exception could be taken to that order.
---S. 24--Election Tribunal dismissing election petition after applying its conscious mind and giving sound reasons--No misreading of material evidence shown--Provisions of relevant law, held, had not been flouted by Tribunal and case decided in accordance with case-law laid down by superior Courts--Constitutional petition dismissed as being without merit. M.A. Farani for Petitioner.
Through this constitutional petition Bashir Ahmad petitioner wants this Court to declare the election of Muhammad Jalil respondent No. 1 as a Member Union Council, Roghanwali to be illegal and ineffective upon his rights and to further declare him as elected member of Ward No. 10 of the said Union Council. 2. The facts leading up to this petition are that Bashir Ahmad petitioner, Muhammad Jalil respondent No. 1 and Bashir Ahmad respondent No. 2 contested election for the seat of Ward No. 10 of Union Council Roghanwali. Muhammad Jalil respondent No. 1 was declared elected. On this Bashir Ahmad petitioner questioned -the election of respondent No. 1 through election petition before the Senior Civil Judge/ Tribunal Bahawalnagar. The petition was resisted whereon two issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the election of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside
(2) Relief.
The petition was dismissed on 27-3-1984, hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has wrongly given more importance to medical certificate than to birth entry, that the reasons given by the Tribunal are bad in law; that the observations of the Tribunal that the order of the Returning Officer was final is illegal and that the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from misreading of the evidence. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I find that the Tribunal has applied his conscious mind and given sound reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by him. The learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading of material evidence. No doubt the order of the Returning Officer with regard to the age of respondent No. 1 was not final yet since the Tribunal has found respondent No. 1 above 25 years of age, therefore, no exception can be taken to his judgment. I find that the provisions of relevant law have not been flouted and the case has been decided by the Tribunal in accordance with the case-law laid down by the superior Courts. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. H.A.K. Writ refused.