ABDUL RASHID, ETC. vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ETC.S
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service/election matter where the petitioner challenged the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the entire election for an electoral unit void due to irregularities, which order was upheld in limine by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the failure of the Election Tribunal to explicitly state that the irregularities materially affected the result of the election under rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 vitiates the decision. The Supreme Court held that despite the technical omission of the exact statutory formula by the Tribunal, the nature of the irregularities—specifically regarding delimitation and tampering with ballot boxes—inherently demonstrated that the result was materially affected, rendering remand unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that where irregularities are grave enough to clearly impact the election outcome, the absence of a ritualistic recitation of statutory phrasing is a mere technicality that does not warrant interference or remand.
- Does the failure of an Election Tribunal to explicitly use the statutory formula regarding material effect on election results vitiate its decision?
- Whether irregularities in delimitation and ballot box handling are sufficient to declare an election void as a whole?
- Rule 15, Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules 1979
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Abdul Rashid petitioner and Abdur Razzak (respondent No. 2) were candidates alongwith four others for the election to be held for Electoral Unit No. 296/G. B of Local Council No. 122, Tehsil Tobatek Singh, District Faisalabad. The petitioner was elected but Abdur Razzak filed an election petition for getting the whole election declared to be void. After hearing the parties, Election Tribunal Sargodha, accepted the same vide its order dated 30-10-1980, and held that in view of the fact that the election was not conducted fairly and irregularities were committed during the election proceedings, the whole election was void. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court through a writ petition which was dismissed in limine vide the impugned order. Hence the present petition.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, if such irregularities committed during the election were to affect the result of the election materially the election may be declared void as a whole. But the learned Election Tribunal had not observed in so many words that the irregularities committed during the election in question were such as they had materially affected the result of the election.
The High Court while dismissing the petition noted down the following irregularities in the election ". . The election started later than the scheduled hours, symbol of lota was painted on the ballot box of one of the candidates, lock of the ballot box of another candidate was broken at 12 noon and that the voters had not been made properly aware by the authorities concerned of the correct delimitation of the unit from where they were voting."
Keeping in view the nature of these irregularities, specially the one relating to the `delimitation' of the Constituency we feel that although the learned Election Tribunal had not repeated the formula mentioned in section 15, the defect is merely technical one. We are of the view that the irregularities committed in this election mist have materially affected the result of the election and the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge on a technical ground for demanding and requiring remand of the matter to the Election Tribunal for rehearing all over again.
3. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case we do not think it a fit case for grant of Leave to Appeal notwithstanding the above-noted technical objection. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- DEWAN SALMAN FIBRE LTD. and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, M_O Finance and others 2015 PTD 2304
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ARIF KHAN, ADVOCATE vs NOOR ALAM and others 1987 CLC 1353
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others 1985 CLC 2956
- Dewan Salman Fibre Ltd., etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, etc 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 677
- DEWAN SALMAN FIBRE LTD. etc. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, M_O Finance etc PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 1