Ch. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL OF UC-45, ARIFWALA and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a Single Judge's order declaring the petitioner as the elected Nazim and Naib Nazim following the disqualification of the original candidates. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly allowed an Intra-Court Appeal against the Single Judge's decision, and whether the election process for the Nazim and Naib Nazim, which constituted a joint candidature, was properly handled after the disqualification of one candidate. The Supreme Court observed that while the Election Tribunal and the High Court initially failed to address the principle of joint candidature and the requirement for fresh elections upon disqualification, the electoral process for both seats had subsequently been completed. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment, noting that the mandate of the law had been satisfied through the holding of fresh elections and that the term of the local council was nearing its conclusion. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the issues had become effectively moot.
- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against a judgment of a Single Judge in an election matter concerning local government seats?
- Does the disqualification of one candidate in a joint candidature for Nazim and Naib Nazim necessitate fresh elections for both seats?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an election dispute when the electoral process has already been completed and the term of the local council is nearing its end?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Submits that petitioner along with respondent Nasrullah contested the elections for Nazim and Naib Nazim respectively; that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were declared as returned candidates, that on an election petition filed by petitioner and respondent No, 3, the Election Tribunal annulled the election of respondent No, 4 as Nazim on the ground that lie was disqualified to contest; that as the candidature was joint the said judgment was violative of the principle of sinker laid down by this court in Mian Ahmad Saeed and others v. Election Tribunal for Kasur at Okara and 7 others (2003 SCM R 1611) it challenged by the petitioner in writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide the judgment dated 8-10-2008 and having declared the election of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as void, since petitioner and respondent No, 3 had obtained the next highest votes then were declared as returned Nazim and Naib Nazim; that the said judgment was challenged by respondent No,3 by one Muhammad Ilyas (respondent No, 2) in intra Court Appeal which was allowed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide- the impugned judgment dated 3-12-2008.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the Intra Court Appeal was not maintainable and therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. He further contended that the judgment of the, learned Single Judge was in line with the legislative intent and the law laid down by this Court which could not have been interfered with in Intra Court appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at sonic length and have gone through the impugned judgment.
4. On court's query learned counsel for the petitioner admits that pursuant to the impugned judgment the election for the seat of Naib Nazim have already been held. Earlier on in terms of the judgment of the Election Tribunal dated 20-2-2007 vide which the election of Nazim was declared void on account of disqualification, the elections to the said seat were held. One of the points raised by the petitioner in the High Court was that elections to the seat of Nazim alone could not be held as it was joint candidature. It was this anomaly which the learned Division Bench has rectified through the impugned judgment by directing the election to the seat of Naib Nazim as well.
Although there is substance in the statement of petitioner's learned counsel that the election of both the seat i,e, Nazim and Naib Nazitn should have been held together but unfortunately this aspect was not attended to by the Election Tribunal and even the learned High Court did not advert to the law laid down by this court to the effect that when a seat was vacant on account of educational disqualification, the said disqualification not being notorious fresh elections had to he .
Held and the learned High Court instead declared petitioner to he elected, The mandate of law has already been given effect to as admittedly elections of both the seats have taken place. In these circumstances, we would not like to interfere: More so, when admittedly the term of local council concerned is almost over.
5. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any meritin this petition which is dismissed and .