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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1018 of 1984, decided on 25th October, 1984.
(From the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30‑9‑1984 in Writ Petition No. 4217 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, r. 59‑‑Local Council Election‑‑Equal votes obtained‑‑Re‑election‑ Proposer of elected candidate found disqualified‑‑Ousted as proposer and voter after election‑‑Contesting candidates being left with equal votes, re‑election ordered on ground that result was materially affected‑‑Contention that ouster of proposer could not have materially affected result and in event of equal votes, one of candidates had to be declared elected by drawing of lots‑‑Held It was for forum concerned, keeping in view relevant law and facts of case, to declare whether or not election was materially affected‑‑How much influence proposer had on, other voters could not be said with certainty‑‑Not being a fit case for interference with findings of Election Tribunal, leave to appeal refused.
Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 1984.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 30th September, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a dispute in connection with the office of Chairman of a Local Council, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner secured 10 votes as against contesting respondent (No. 2) who obtained 9 votes. It was, however, discovered that one Dogar Ali who had proposed the name of the petitioner as a candidate for the office of the Chairman could not become the proposer on account of some proceedings in connection with his own election as Member of the Local Council. Accordingly on a beneficial assumption in favour of the petitioner that Dogar Ali might have voted in his favour only the latter's vote was excluded with the finding that both the petitioner and Muhammad Aslam obtained 9:9 votes. It was further found as a fact that the result of the election was materially effected and a re‑election was ordered. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the re‑election which having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has relying on Rule 59 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979 contended that notwithstanding any defect in the qualification of the proposer the petitioner could have himself offered as a candidate without the instrumentality of a separate proposer, therefore, the ouster of Dogar Ali as a proposer as also as a voter would not make any material difference in so far as the result of the election is concerned, because both the candidates, as held by the Tribunal concerned, having obtained equal votes it was mandatory under the law to declare one of the candidates elected in accordance with the legal procedure permitting the drawing of lots. In other words he further explained in the circumstances of this case it could not be validly held that the result of the election had been materially effected due to the ouster of Dogar Ali proposer.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal because it was for the forum concerned, keeping in view the relevant law and the facts of the case to declare whether or not the election was materially effected. Moreover, it cannot be said with any certainty that the ouster of Dogar Ali would have affected only one vote. It is not known how, important that one vote was and as to how much influence Dogar Ali had on other voters who might have voted in favour of the petitioner.
His being a proposer, it cannot be said will certainty that it did not make any difference in so far as the casting of other votes is concerned. Be that as it may as already observed it is not a fit case for interference with the findings of the Election Tribunal. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer