LIAQUAT ALI Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SIALKOT

ORDER

1. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 26-2-2002 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No.3237 of 2002 filed by the petitioners was dismissed maintaining the order, dated 6-2-2002 of the Election Tribunal, Sialkot, whereby the plea of recount of ballot papers was declined.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioners as well as respondents Nos.2 and 3 contested the elections of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No.54, Jhateke, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. The petitioners secured 3338 votes while the respondents bagged 3344 votes. The petitioners challenged the election of the respondents through an election petition on various .grounds on 3-4-2001. However, on 24-4-2001 the petitioners gave up all other grounds by making a statement except one taken in paragraph 6 of the petition which was regarding bogus/invalid votes.

3. The learned Election Tribunal thereupon ordered for recounting of ballot papers on. 25-6-2001 and directed the parties to appear on 7-7-2001. This order led both the parties in filing different writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The learned Election Tribunal in the final analysis was directed by the learned Single Judge to record evidence first to find out, whether any ground for recounting of ballot papers had been made out.

4. The parties produced their respective evidence and the learned Election Tribunal vide order, dated 6-2-2002 rejected the election petition of the petitioners, which order was further assailed through the above writ petition. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the same by means of judgment, dated 26-2-2002, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record by the parties. We have noticed that the petitioners from the very beginning before the issuance of the notification qua result of aforesaid seats challenged the election on different grounds. Initially, the stance taken before the Returning Officer was about alleged tampering , and fabrication of result. This was disposed of by the Returning Officer vide. his order; dated 26-3-2001 holding that the account furnished by the Presiding Officer regarding those polling stations was found correct except with the addition of one vote each of both Hashmat Ullah and Liaquat Ali, which were rejected by the Presiding Officer. We have also noticed that in paragraph 6 of the election petition the petitioners asserted the use of illegal practices and counting of fabricated/uncounted votes. This paragraph reads as under:--

6. However, the underlined writing appears to be incorporated later on. We have thoroughly gone through the election petition. In between every paragraph, which are nine in number, the petitioners had left out sufficient space between each of them. However, in paragraph 6 the underlined writing appears to be inserted subsequently. This ground, as rightly stated by the Election Tribunal, was an afterthought: The Election Tribunal has dealt this aspect in the following terms:--

7. "It is worth mentioning here that the application Exh.A3, embodies not even iota of assertion or request that the cast ballot papers bearing no stamp and signatures at their back had been counted in the count of parties and specially the respondents, what should had been considered invalid. Likewise in the said order, Exh.A4, of the learned Returning Officer, no reference is found concerning observation of any such-like ballot paper which bore no stamp and signatures of polling staff. At the first instance, this Tribunal can safely conceive in mind that the plea raised before this Tribunal based upon invalidity of votes on account of absence of stamp and signatures was an afterthought than the recount made by the learned Returning Officer in presence of the parties and secondly since the learned Returning Officer being well aware of law concerning votes liable to be discarded as being invalid, specifically. observed in the said order that he counted the invalid votes, therefore, either there was no vote at all cast in a manner alleged by the present petitioners, or if there been any, was never objected to by any of the two parties present at the time of re-count. "

8. Even otherwise, the evidence brought on record does not make out a case for recounting of ballot papers. The learned Election Tribunal, after thrashing the entire evidence, had come to a definite conclusion that it was a plea taken afterwards and no case for recounting of ballot papers had been made out by the petitioners, which determination has been I upheld by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by advancing cogent and plausible reasons.

9. Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, present petition. being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.

10. M.H../L-23/S Petition dismissed.