IRSHAD KHAN vs ABDUL MAJEED AND 3 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition relating to a local government election. The petitioner, who had been declared successful in the election for Union Council No. 50 (Electoral Unit, Nizampur Ghallian), faced an election petition filed by respondent No. 2. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition, set aside the election result, and disqualified the petitioner for four years under section 21-A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, for contesting on a political basis. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition, holding that the Tribunal's findings of fact were conclusive and not open to interference. The Supreme Court considered whether the Election Tribunal misread the evidence. The Court held that the counsel failed to point out any misreading justifying interference, and that seeking a reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction is unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that findings of fact by a tribunal are conclusive unless shown to be without lawful authority through clear misreading.
- Can the High Court reappraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction against findings of fact by an Election Tribunal?
- Whether findings of fact arrived at by an Election Tribunal are conclusive in writ proceedings?
- Does contesting a local government election on a political basis attract disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Section 21-A, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 1-12-1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitutional petition arising out of a local election was dismissed in limine.
2. Learned counsel states that the petitioner obtained highest votes in a local election from Union Council No. 50 (Electoral Unit, Nizampur Ghallian) and was declared successful. Respondent No. 2 was the contesting candidate, who having lost, filed an election petition which was ultimately allowed by an Election Tribunal. In addition to the setting aside of the result of the election, the petitioner was also disqualified for four years to contest election under section 21-A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The ground urged by the respondent and found against the petitioner was that be contested the election on political basis which was prohibited by the said provision of law.
3. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Election Tribunal before the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. His petition was dismissed by a Division Bench for the reason that the findings of fact arrived at by the Election Tribunal were conclusive; and that the order impugned before the High Court, nor being without lawful authority, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
4. We have heard the learned counsel in support of this petition. The only point pressed by him is that the Election Tribunal had misread the evidence. But despite his assertion learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading which would justify interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
5. In reality the effect of the learned counsel is to seek reappraisal of the evidence which not being justified at all, the dismissal of writ petition by the High Court is unexceptionable. This petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed.