Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.502 of 1982, decided on 12th December, 1982.

---S.17--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9--Jurisdiction of Election Authority--Compromise--Election Authority passing an order based upon compromise of parties, and after recording statements of parties to draw lots afresh--A consent order based on statement of parties, held, could not be allowed to be challenged by way of constitutional petition--A person once having submitted to jurisdiction of Election Authority and given consent for order, could not challenge competency of such authority and validity of its order, by way of writ--Even otherwise Election Authority had jurisdiction to pass such order after amendment in section 17 of Ordinance-- Order of Election Authority upheld.

Ch.Abdul Hafeez for Petitioner.

-This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Muhammad Asghar petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 20-4-1982 passed by the Punjab Local Council Election Authority, Lahore respondent No.1 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that Rana Muhammad Asghar petitioner and Abdul Ghani respondent No. 3 contested Union Council Election from Halga No.4 of Union Council No.115, Tehsil and District, Vehari. They, however, got equal votes. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner/Returning Officer respondent No.2 decided the matter by toss. As the luck favoured the petitioner, he was declared as elected. Aggrieved by this decision, respondent No.3 moved petition before the Punjab Local Council Authority, Lahore, respondent No. 1 before whom the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 agreed to the drawing of lot afresh and declaration of the result on the basis thereof. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 recorded the statement of petitioner wherein he gave his consent for drawing of lot and a fresh declaration of the result according to the lot. Respondent No.3 also made a statement to that effect. On the basis of this agreement, respondent No.1 directed Returning Officer to draw lot on 15-5-1982 at 10-00 a.m. in the presence of the parties who were directed to appear before him. The petitioner, however, on 4-5-1982 i.e. 6 days prior to the date fixed for the drawing of the lot, for the reasons best known to him, filed this writ petition to challenge the consent order.

3. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that under Ordinance XII of 1979, whereby section 17 of the Ordinance VI of 1979 was amended and renumbered, respondent No.1 was not competent to adjudicate the petition before him and also could not record the compromise. After having considered the arguments of the learned counsel with care, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order for the reasons that the same being based on the statements of the petitioner and respondent No.3, is a consent order and as such should not be allowed to be challenged by way of Constitutional petition. To our mind, the petitioner once having submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 and given consent for the impugned order, it does not lie in his mouth to agitate the competency of respondent No.1 and the validity of the impugned order, before this Court in its Writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise we find that the respondent had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after the amendment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

For what has been stated above, there being no force in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

H.A.K. Writ refused.