Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1020 of 1984, decided on 15th October. 1984.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑10‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No.4530 of 1983).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.24‑‑Local Council Election‑‑Mistake in counting votes‑‑Election Tribunal deciding matter without framing issue in respect of question in dispute‑‑Order challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑Plea that procedure laid down by rule 8 of Punjab Local Council (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 was not strictly followed repelled‑‑Strict compliance with procedure prescribed by C.P.C. in such matter not necessary‑‑Election Tribunal having done what was essential to resolve dispute and substantial justice having been done, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanveer Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th October, 1984.

.‑‑ The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dismissing his writ petition whereby he had challenged the order of the Election Tribunal, dated 22‑10‑1983.

2. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioner and respondent No.l contested the Local Council Election held on 28‑9‑1983 for a seat in Ward No.6, Union Council Karianwala, District Gujrat. As a result of the counting of the votes immediately after the election each of the candidates was found to have obtained 139 votes. Lots were consequently drawn and the petitioner was declared as successful. The respondent challenged his election through an election petition under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Before the Election Tribunal, respondent No.l made a statement withdrawing all objections, except the objection relating to counting. Consequently the Election Tribunal recounted the votes and found that one of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner was invalid. Therefore, it declared Raham Dad respondent as having been elected from the constituency in question.

3. Feeling ‑aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Before the High Court his contention was that the Election Tribunal had not strictly followed the procedure laid down by rule 8 of the Election Petition Rules, inasmuch as it had not framed any issue in respect of the question in dispute. But this contention did not find favour with the High Court and it dismissed his writ petition vide the impugned order.

Hence the present petition.

4. The petitioner's counsel has urged the same contention before us. We are however, inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that in such matters strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by the C.P.C. was not necessary and the Election Tribunal did what was essential to resolve the dispute relating to the alleged mistake in the counting of votes. We are of the view that substantial justice has been done in this case and we do not consider it a fit case for interference.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any force.

M . I . Petition 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.