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. 1089 of 1984, decided on 1st March, 1986.
‑‑‑R.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Marks on ballot‑papers due to careless handling by voters‑‑Effect‑‑Marks on ballot‑papers as result of careless handling of same by voters, held, would not be marks of identification‑‑Votes not declared invalid by Election Tribunal would have to be counted in favour of candidate in whose favour such votes were cast‑‑Since elected candidate secured more votes than unsuccessful candidate as per count of valid votes, opening of envelope containing ballot‑papers cast in favour of defeated candidate would be irrelevant and would not justify interference by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
Ijaz Feroze for Petitioner.
Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 1st March, 1986.
.‑‑In a contest for the office of the Chairman, Union Council No.9 Chak No. 644‑GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, Muhammad Boota was declared elected when he received eight votes as against seven obtained by Abdus Sattar petitioner. The petitioner challenged the election by way of an election petition on the ground that two votes cast in favour of Muhammad Boota respondent bore ink marks whereby the voters could easily be identified and therefore have to be excluded from the count. The Election Tribunal opened both the envelopes, one containing the votes cast in favour of the petitioner and the other of Muhammad Boots respondent. It was observed that two of the votes in each of the envelopes bore marks of finger prints which "perhaps were affixed due to the carelessness of the voters who thumb‑marked the counter‑foil and then handled the ballot‑papers with the same hand." The Presiding Officer who was called by the Tribunal deposed that none of the parties had objected to the counting of the marked votes and that the marks did not come to his notice otherwise he would have declared all the four votes to be invalid. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the envelope containing the ballot‑papers of Muhammad Boots respondent could be opened, the envelope containing his votes could not be opened without a recrimination petition filed by the opposite party. This objection, however, is not relevant as the Election Tribunal never found that the two ballot‑papers cast in favour of Muhammad Boota were invalid on account of the marks found on them. The only observation made by the Tribunal is that the marks were the result of careless handling of the ballot‑papers. This means that they were not marks of identification. Since the Tribunal gave no' finding regarding the invalidity of the two votes objected to by the petitioner, all the eight votes cast in favour of Muhammad Boota respondent are to be treated as valid. Under these circumstances the question of opening of the envelope containing the ballot‑papers cast in favour of the petitioner becomes completely irrelevant.
2. In view of the above considerations there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer