Pakistan Case LawChaudhary MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus Chaudhary MAQBOOL AHMED GUJJAR
This civil petition arose out of election proceedings concerning Constituency No. LA-35, Jammu-II, Gujranwala. Following a recount ordered in earlier appellate proceedings, the petitioner was declared the returned candidate. Respondent No.1 subsequently filed a fresh election petition before the Election Tribunal. The petitioner sought dismissal of the election petition under Section 90 of the Elections Act, 2020, on the ground that it was not maintainable for failing to specifically challenge the Election Commission's notification and the official gazette notification declaring the petitioner successful. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application, holding the matter to be a mixed question of law and fact to be determined after recording evidence, and fixed the case for framing issues. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against that order. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the concurrent findings, holding that whether the election petition was properly constituted could be decided after recording evidence. Finding no legal question of public importance, the Supreme Court refused leave and dismissed the petition.
- Whether an objection regarding the failure to challenge the official gazette notification declaring a candidate successful in an election petition can be treated as a mixed question of law and fact to be resolved after recording evidence?
- Can an Election Tribunal defer the determination of an application filed under Section 90 of the Elections Act, 2020 for the dismissal of an election petition until evidence is recorded?
- Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court can be granted in an election matter when no legal question of public importance arises from the concurrent interlocutory findings of the courts below?
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, CJ.--- The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 contested general elections held on 25.07.2021 for Constituency No. LA-35, Jammu-II, Gujranwala. Respondent No.1 was initially declared the returned candidate, which was challenged by the petitioner through an election petition. The petition was accepted, and re-election was ordered. Both parties preferred appeals before this Court, whereupon, a direction was issued for recounting of votes. After the recounting, the petitioner was declared successful. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a fresh election petition before the Election Tribunal. The petitioner filed objections and an application under section 90 of the Elections Act, 2020 for dismissal of the petition. The Election Tribunal, vide order dated 11.12.2024, dismissed the application and fixed the case for framing of issues. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2025.
2.Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the election petition filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable as it failed to challenge the notification dated 22.01.2024 issued by the Election Commission, and the official gazette notification dated 23.01.2024, whereby the petitioner was declared the returned candidate. It was specifically pleaded before the Election Tribunal that the election petition had not been constituted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law. However, instead of deciding this legal objection on merits, the Election Tribunal erroneously treated the matter as a mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence. According to him, this ground is sufficient for grant of leave.
3.Conversely, Mr. Abdul Naeem Chaudhary, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal is well reasoned and calls for no interference. No legal question of public importance exists, hence, grant of leave in this case is not justified.
4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The prime issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.1 failed to challenge the notification dated 22.01.2024 issued by the Election Commission and the official gazette notification dated 23.01.2024, whereby the petitioner was declared the returned candidate. However, in this regard, both the Courts below have already recorded observations that this question can be decided after recording evidence of the parties. Regarding other issues, the learned Election Tribunal has recorded detailed findings which appear to be in consonance with the law and facts of the case. In our opinion, no legal question of public importance exists for grant of leave.
Resultantly, finding no force, this petition is dismissed.
MQ/45/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Raja Saeed Akram Khan1,081 judgments
- Khawaja Muhammad Nasim179 judgments
- Raza Ali Khan318 judgments