INAM-UL-HAQ Versus -MUHAMMAAD BASHIR

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J. ‑‑This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.15 ‑6 of 1988 and 1597 of 1988, as common questions of law and facts have been raised therein and the same order has been assailed in both the petitions. It shall, however, remain on the file of Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1988.

2. The facts are that in an election petition filed by Muhammad Bashir. respondent No.l, herein, against Haji Inam‑ul‑Haq, petitioner, challenging his election. from the workers' seat of Municipal Corporation, Sargodha, the latter filed a Recrimination Petition, in contemplation of Rule I1 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, to contend that the respondent being not a worker was not eligible to contest the election and thus even if he was elected his election was liable to be declared as void. Similar contention was raised by the petitioner by way of preliminary objection, in his written statement. He then moved an application Annexure 'E/1' requesting the Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue on the basis of the contentions in the Recrimination Petition. This application has been disposed of by the Tribunal by its order, dated 12‑3‑1988, under challenge in this writ petition. The Tribunal took the view that Rule 8‑A of the Election Petition Rules, related only to the Returned candidates and not to the one who contested the election but was defeated.

3. It is argued that the view taken by the learned Election Tribunal that Rule 8‑A applies only to a petition in which a challenge is thrown to the election of a returned candidate, is misconceived.

Relying on Rule 11(2) it is further submitted that the Recrimination Petition par takes the character of an election petition. Rule 11(2) is to be read alongwith Rule 8‑A and when both the provisions are considered in juxtaposition an obligation is cast on the Tribunal to apply Rule 8‑A even to the Recrimination Petition. Thus, in the submission of the learned counsel, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have formulated a preliminary issue on the basis of the plea urged in the Recrimination Petition.

4. The learned counsel is not wrong in contending that Rule 8‑A was not considered by the Tribunal qua the Recrimination petition. We would not, however, like to adjudicate upon this point in these proceedings, for, there seems to be no bar for the petitioner to apply to the Tribunal below for reconsideration of the issue. The petitioner may, therefore, move the Election Tribunal in the matter in accordance with law.

With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

A.A./I‑68/L Order accordingly