Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.785 of 1984, decided on 12th August, 1984.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 19‑6‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No.4756).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.24‑‑Local Council Election‑‑Election petition challenging result accepted‑‑Order unsuccessfully impugned in writ jurisdiction‑‑Petitioner raising same contentions before Supreme Court as were dealt with and repelled by High Court‑‑No fault having been found with High Court reasoning, leave to appeal refused.

C. M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 12th August, 1984.

.‑‑ Muhammad Suleman petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 19‑6‑1984. dismissing his writ petition in an election matter.

2. Facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 contested Election from Ward No.7 Chak No.122 Shumali, Union Council No.71, Chak No.138, Janoobi, Tehsil and District Sargodha. The petitioner got 140 votes whereas respondent No.2 got 135 votes and as such the petitioner was declared elected, which was duly notified. Thereupon respondent No.2 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal (respondent No.l) praying therein for recounting of the votes and for a declaration that the election was void, and with further prayer that, he (respondent No.2) be declared as having been elected as Member. The Election Tribunal accepted the election petition and declared respondent No.2 as elected, vide its order dated 28‑10‑1983.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (No. 4756/83) which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition.

2. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length and have also gone through the impugned judgment. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel on petitioner's behalf before the High Court was that the Election Tribunal had not given any reasons for its order declaring certain votes of the petitioner to be invalid and secondly that the signatures of the Presiding Officer on various documents were not in the handwriting of the same person. We notice that theses contentions have been dealt with and repelled by the learned High Court and the petitioner's counsel has not been able to find any fault with the reasoning of the learned Judges in repelling these contentions. As such we do not, therefore, think this to be a fit case for interference.

The application is consequently dismissed.

M.I. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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