Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 367‑R of 1985, decided on 2nd November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑8‑1985 passed in Constitutional Petition No. 3343 of 1985.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, r. 13‑‑Local Council Elections‑‑Disqualification of candidate‑‑Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal‑‑Nomination of petitioner rejected by Returning Officer on objection by respondent‑‑Order set aside in appeal and his name entered in list of validly nominated candidates‑‑Petitioner's election later set aside on ground that he was Amir of a defunct political party and respondent declared elected‑‑Plea that order of acceptance of nomination paper having become final, question of disqualification on some other ground could not be raised before Tribunal, repelled‑ Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare election of a returned candidate to be void if it was satisfied that his nomination was invalid‑‑High Court's order being un‑exceptionable, leave to appeal refused.

Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhter Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1985.

This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑8‑1985 whereby a Constitutional Petition of the petitioner calling in question tithe order of the Election Tribunal, Attock, dated 23‑7‑1985 was partly dismissed.

2. The petitioner was elected as member of the Union Council Chakki in Tehsil Pindigheb from village Thati Saidoo Shah. The respondent No. 1, a rival defeated candidate in the said election, filed an election petition under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, before the Deputy Commission circum‑Election Tribunal, Attock. One of the allegation in the petition was that the petitioner was the Amir of a defunct political party, namely, Markazi Jamiat‑i‑Ahl‑i‑Hadees and as such he was disqualified to contest the election. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and examining the evidence led before it accepted the petition by order, dated 23‑7‑1985. As a result the election of the petitioner to the seat of member Union Council, Chakki was set aside and the respondent No. 1 Was declared elected.

3. This order was challenged by the petitioner in High Court through a Constitutional Petition. The learned High Court held that the Tribunal's finding on the issue of the petitioner being a member of a political party was based on the admission made by the petitioner himself in judicial proceedings and this was sufficient to support the finding of the Tribunal. The High Court, therefore, found that on this issue the order of the Tribunal was unexceptionable. However, the petition was admitted to examine the contention of the petitioner that the Election Tribunal was not competent to declare the rival candidate as elected. This petition now seeks to challenge the said order of the High Court.

4. On the legal plane it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent had earlier objected to the nomination of the petitioner before the Returning Officer, on the ground that the petitioner belonged to Muslim League (Chatha Group). On such objection the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected on 8‑9‑1983 but on appeal under rule 16 of the Local Councils (Elections) Rules, 1979, the order was set aside and the name of the petitioner was ordered to be entered in the list of validly nominated candidates. Thus, according to the learned counsel the order of acceptance of the petitioner's nomination paper had become final and the question of his disqualification on some other ground could not be raised before the Tribunal.

5. The contention overlooks the fact that under rule 13 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 the Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the election of a returned candidate to be void if it is satisfied that the nomination of the returned candidate was invalid. The learned counsel was unable to satisfy us that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to examine the question of the disqualification of a candidate independently in the appellate proceedings. Besides no complaint can be made that an opportunity to rebut the relevant allegations was not afforded to the petitioner before the Tribunal because the allegation was contained in the election petition itself and the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to controvert the same.

6. The question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner was a member of a defunct political party, is purely one of fact which has been adjudicated upon and decided by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. It was not urged before us that such a finding was not based on any material evidence. In fact we were referred to the evidence relied upon by the Tribunal. The learned High Court had opportunity to look into the evidence and rightly decided not to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on this ground.

7. The petition, in the circumstances, merits no consideration and it is dismissed.

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.