Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 453 of 1960, decided on 1st December 1961.

‑Prescribed age of candidate‑Twenty five years on first day of January "preceding the election"‑Means on first day of January "preceding publication of electoral rolls"‑Words and Phrases‑"Election"‑"Single process" from date of publi cation of electoral rolls to date of declaration of result "Preceding election" means "preceding first chain in link" and not last‑"Notification" of result in Gazette, no part of election‑West Pakistan Basic Democracies Election Rules, 1959, r. 59.

Held, that "Election" is a single process from the date of publication of the electoral roll to the date on which the result of the election is declared, like a chain with a number of links.

A date "preceding" the election will then be a date preceding the first link in the chain and not a date preceding the last link; for a date preceding the last link would be a date preceding the declaration of the result, and all other links in the chain of election would "precede" such date.

An election is not complete until the entire election pro gramme is over, but notification of the result is no part of the election programme as detailed in rule 4, sub‑rule (3) of the Basic Democracies Election Rules, 1959. An election ends with the declaration of the result, and since the Government does not fix any particular date for its notification, the date on which an election becomes complete will remain a matter of uncertainty if the notification of the result were also regarded as a part of the election.

Rule 59, West Pakistan Basic Democracies Election Rules, 1959 cannot override para. 1, Part II of the Second Schedule to the Basic Democracies Order, 1959.

Irfan Akhtar Shah v. Election Tribunal, District Shahpur P L D 1961 Lab. 189 varied.

Ch. Karam Elahi Chauhan for Petitioner.

Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for Respondent No. 1.

Sh. Ata Ullah Sajjad A. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 1st December 1961.

.‑In the elections to the Union Committee D' at Pakpattan, Muhammad Nazir Hakim, petitioner, and Bakhtiar Said Muhammad, respondent, were both elected, the former from Ward No. 15, the latter from Ward No. 17. They were both candidates for the post of Chairman, and at the election on the 27th February 1960, while the petitioner secured three votes, the respondent secured five, with the result that the respondent was declared elected as chairman. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ of quo warranto, calling into question the respondent's election as a member on the ground that he did not possess the qualification of being 25 years old on the 1st of January preceding the election. How the term "election", should be interpreted is the only question referred to this Full Bench.

2. The Basic Democracies Order, 1959, contains the quali fications and disqualifications of electors and members in the Second Schedule. Paragraph 1 of Part II of the Schedule is to the following effect: ‑

"A person who is not less than twenty‑five years of age on the first day of January preceding the election shall be qualified to be elected as a member of a Union Council or a Town or Union Committee if his name appears for the time being on the electoral roll for the Town or Union concerned, and he does not suffer from a disqualification mentioned in Part L"

3. The respondent, Bakhtiar Said Muhammad, was born on the night following the 31st of December 1934, so that he would be 25 years of age on the 1st of January 1960, but not on the 1st of January 1959. The election programme of the Basic Democracies was as follows:‑

4. The actual date fixed for polling in the present case was the 5th of January 1960.

5. For the petitioner it was argued that the candidate must possess the qualification relating to age on the date when his nomination papers are filed, while for the respondent it was M contended that the date of presentation of nomination papers was S only a step in the process of election and that the relevant date was the date on which the election was completed. If a single B day before that date the candidate has attained the age of twenty‑five, he is qualified to stand for election. The respondent's argument was based largely on the judgment of a Division Bench in Irfan Akhtar Shah v. Election Tribunal District Shahpur (P L D 1961 Lah. 189). The finding of the Division Bench, which was stated in the judgment of Sajjad Ahmad, J. may conveniently reproduced here: ‑

"The term election', in my opinion, as employed in para graph I of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Order means the completed process of the election comprising all the various steps including the declaration of the final result and its notification and it is the date of the completed process and not any previous stage which has to be taken into account for computing the age of a candidate on the 1st day of January preceding it."

6. We respectfully agree that an election is not complete until the entire election programme is over, but here we should state by way of qualification that the notification of the result is no part of the election programme as detailed in rule 4, sub-rule (3) of the Basic Democracies Election Rules, 1959. An C election ends with the declaration of the result, and since the Government does not fix any particular date for its notification, the date on which an election becomes complete will remain a matter of uncertainty if the notification of the result were also regarded as a part of the election.

7. But while we agree that the term "election" stands for the entire process which leads step by step to a certain result, we find it difficult to hold that the age of a candidate should be determined with reference to the final stage in the process. If election is a single process from the date of publi cation of the electoral roll to the date on which the result of the election is declared, like a chain with a number of links, then a date "preceding the election" will be a date preceding the first link in the chain and not a date preceding the last link ; for a date preceding the last link would be a date preceding the declaration of the result, and all other links in the chain of election would "precede" such date. In that case we would be defining the term "election" as "the publication of the result of the election".

8. An example which will explain our argument further may be drawn from the winter vacation of the High Court. This vacation begins on the 24th of December and ends on the 1st of January following. If for the purposes of recruitment to a certain post we require a candidate to be twenty‑five years of age before the winter vacation, no person who was twenty‑five years of age on the 28th December would be eligible.

9. We have considered rule 59 of the Basic Democracies Election Rules also; but we do not think this furnishes any additional ground in support of our argument. Under that rule "the Election Tribunal shall declare an election to be void if it is satisfied that‑‑

(a) . . . . . . . . . .

(b) on the nomination day the returned candidate was not qualified for, or was disqualified from, being elected for the ward."

10. Prima facie, it would appear from this rule that if on the day of nomination the candidate was not twenty‑five years of age, he would not be qualified to stand. For his qualifications, however, we have to go back to the Second Schedule to the Basic Democracies Order, Part 11, paragraph 1, and to determine whether on the 1st January preceding the election the candidate had attained the age of twenty‑five years. In other words, rule 59 cannot override paragraph 1, Part II of the Second Schedule.

11. Our reply, therefore, is that the respondent in this case should have attained the age of twenty‑five years on the 1st of January 1959, not on the 1st January 1960. There will be no order as to costs. The case will go back to the Division Bench for a formal order on the assumption that no other question arises for decision.

A. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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