Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No. 3482 of 1984, decided on 27th April, 1986.
---Art. 199--Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.24- Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, Rr. 13 & 15- Conduct of election--Extensive illegal practice--Proof--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Instructions regarding writing of identity card number being only directory and not mandatory absence of identity card number of voter on counter-foil of ballot-paper, held, would not disenfranchise voters and such votes could not be discounted--Certain ballot books having been used for more than one unit, votes found in ballot box in excess of votes issued, could be well-explained from proceedings of election--No extensive illegal practice in conduct of election having been proved, order of Election Tribunal declaring election void as a whole was declared illegal by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Petitioner.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing 27th April, 1986.
In an election to a seat in Union Council Mehrajke Tehsil Pasroor, District Sialkot the petitioner obtained 214 votes as against 75 obtained by Malik Latif Ahmad, respondent No. 2. Latif Ahmad, however, challenged the election in a petition before the learned Deputy Commissioner/ Election Tribunal, Sialkot. The Election Tribunal found that one hundred ballot-papers did not contain the identity card numbers. He also found that 31 votes were polled in excess of the votes issued. He consequently found that there had been extensive illegal practices in the conduct of the poll and declared the election void as a whole. The order of the Election Tribunal, dated 25-6-1984 has been assailed in the present writ petition.
2. As a matter of calculation even if one, hundred ballot-papers, the counterfoil of which did not contain identity card numbers and the 31 votes polled in excess of the votes issued are excluded from the count of the petitioner he will still have a lead of nine votes over Latif Ahmad respondent. The hundred votes offered cannot however, be discounted as it is now well-settled that the absence of the identity card numbers will not disenfranchise the voters as the instructions regarding the identity cards were only directory and not mandatory. Similarly, the excess votes found in the ballot box can be explained from the proceedings of the election as certain ballot books were used for more than one unit. This by itself cannot amount to a corrupt or illegal practice, what to talk of exensive illegal practice as only 31
In view of the above considerations the orders of the Election dated 25-6-1984 cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are declared to be of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.
H.B.T. Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer