MULAZIM HUSSAIN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding an election dispute for the Union Council Basharat. The petitioner, Mulazim Hussain, was initially declared elected, but the Election Tribunal subsequently declared the election void after finding that markings on ballot papers violated the secrecy of the ballot. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision in the High Court. Upon review, the High Court accepted the petitioner's own argument that the entire election should be declared void rather than merely unseating him. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to argue that the High Court erred in declaring the election void, claiming the markings were not a violation of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the High Court's decision when the High Court had merely granted the specific relief the petitioner had requested in his own writ petition. The Court affirmed that a party cannot complain of an order that aligns with their own pleaded position.
- Can a petitioner challenge a High Court judgment that grants the specific relief requested in their own writ petition?
- Does the principle of approbate and reprobate prevent a party from challenging an order that aligns with their own arguments before the lower court?
- Local Government Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 29th November, 1982 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.
500/81/Rwp. And 2724/LAH.
2. Petitioner Mulazim Hussain and three others namely Abdul Hakim. Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yaqoob contested election of Union Council Basharat in the seat of Electoral Unit Sidhandi Parera on 25-9-1974. Petitioner who secured 207 votes was declared elected while Abdul Hakim, got the next highest number of votes.
3. Abdul Hakim, respondent No. 2, filed an Election Petition on the ground that there were marks on the ballot papers of the petitioner which were pointed out to the Presiding Officer yet these votes were counted illegally in favour of the petitioner. The Election Tribunal, after hearing the parties and recording the evidence, fund that there was some number--ing varying from each other on each ballot paper in column No. 2 which was meant for the number and name of the Electoral Unit, and treated. These marks to be an identification mark violative of secrecy of ballot and held election of petitioner void and respondent Abdul Hakim was declared successful vide order dated 25-5-1981.
4. Petitioner challenged this decision of the learned Election Tribunal through Writ Petition 2724/61 which was accepted by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 29-11-1982.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned High Court Judge while declaring the election, as a whole void did not appreciate that the writing or mentioning of any number of ballot paper was neither violative of the secrecy of the ballot nor was a non-compliance of the provisions of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979 or rules made there under, therefore, for irregularity, if any, the election as a whole could not be declared void. The argument of the learned counsel is devoid of any legal substance. The petition was filed in the High Court by the petitioner himself challenging the decision of the Election Tribunal and it wall urged in the petition that instead of applying rule 14 the learned Tribunal should have applied rule 13 and should have declared the entire election as A void. Thus, it was held by the learned High Court Judge that the election) was void as a whole. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the peti--tioner now to say that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity, and it does not call for any interference by this Court. The petition is consequently dismissed.