MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Other
This petition arises from a challenge to an election from a workers' seat in the Local Council Election held on 29-10-1983, where the petitioner was declared successful. Respondent No.2 challenged the election through an election petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a 'worker', but rather the owner of a bakery. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election void, and the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner also failed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the findings of the Election Tribunal regarding the petitioner's status as a 'worker' on the relevant date were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the evidence established that the petitioner was not a 'worker' and was indeed the owner or manager of the bakery, consequently suspending the operation of the impugned judgment of the Election Tribunal.
- Whether the findings of an Election Tribunal regarding a candidate's status as a worker are vitiated by the misreading of testimony and documents?
- Can an election be declared void on the ground that the returned candidate does not qualify as a worker for the contested seat?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the appreciation of evidence by the lower tribunal requires further consideration?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that Muhammad Rafique petitioner and Muhammad Aslam respondent No.2 contested the election from a workers' seat in Vehari in the Local Council Election held on 29-10-1983. The petitioner was successful in the election but Muhammad Aslam respondent challenged his election through an election petition on the ground that Muhammad Rafique petitioner was not a 'worker' but was the owner of the New Punjab Confectionary (Bakery) at Vehari.
2. After recording the evidence the Election Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the election void. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this order which failed.
Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of the learned Election Tribunal are based on a misreading of the testimony of the witnesses and documents produced by respondent No.2. He stated that although he admitted that he was a Manager of the said Bakery in the year 1981-82 yet he was not a Manager on the date when the nomination papers were filed and accepted and that there is nothing on the record to show .That he was so employed. He also submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that he was owner of the said Confectionary, which was the allegation against him in the petition before the Election Tribunal.
4. After thoroughly going through the evidence placed on the record, we feel that the matter requires further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider as to whether or not from the evidence on the record it is shown that the petitioner was not a 'worker' on 29-10-1983 and was in fact the owner or Manager of the Bakery in question.
5. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only).
6. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
7. Operation of the impugned judgment of the Election Tribunal is suspended in the meanwhile.