ABDUL WAHID Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Abdul Wahid, challenging an election tribunal's decision. The core dispute arose from an election held in Electoral Unit No. 7, which was part of a larger electoral unit comprising units 6, 7, and 8. A misprint in the electoral list index incorrectly identified Unit No. 7 as Unit No. 8. Although the Returning Officer attempted to rectify this error through an amendment order dated 13-9-1983, the correction was issued too late, resulting in significant confusion among voters during the election process. Consequently, the election was challenged via an election petition, which was allowed. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's subsequent writ petition and found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, effectively affirming that the confusion caused by the late rectification of the electoral list justified the setting aside of the election results.
- Does a late rectification of a misprint in an electoral list that causes voter confusion constitute valid grounds for setting aside an election?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment in an election matter where the lower court's conclusion is found to be sound?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Abdul Wahid petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned . Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑4‑1984. in an election case.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Electoral Unit of Chak No. 23‑A/S.B. consists of 3 units, i.e. Units Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The petitioner alongwith respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and many other persons, filed his nomination papers for election from Electoral Unit No. 7, which were duly accepted by the Returning Officer and even a symbol was issued to him. It appears that there was a misprint in the electoral list inasmuch as Electoral Unit No. 7 was shown as Electoral Unit No. 8 in the index of the electoral list. The mistake was, however, rectified by an amendment, vide order, dated 13‑9‑1983, but the amendment was to late that utter confusion prevailed during the election. The same was, therefore, challenged through an election petition which was allowed.
Feeling aggrieved Abdul Wahid petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion reached by the High Court and as such do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed.
M. I. Leave refused.