MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL And
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against an Election Tribunal's order directing re-election for the office of Chairman of a Local Council. The petitioner initially secured 10 votes against the respondent's 9 votes. However, it was discovered that the petitioner's proposer was disqualified, leading the Tribunal to exclude his vote, resulting in a 9-9 tie. The Tribunal concluded that the election result was materially affected and ordered a fresh election rather than determining the winner by drawing lots. The petitioner contended that under Rule 59 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979, the defect in the proposer's qualification did not materially affect the election outcome and lots should have been drawn. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that whether an election result is materially affected is a factual determination for the competent forum. The Court noted that a proposer's influence on other voters could not be discounted, justifying the Tribunal's decision.
- Whether the disqualification of a candidate's proposer necessarily renders an election materially affected to warrant a re-election?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with an Election Tribunal's factual finding that an election result was materially affected?
- Rule 59, Punjab Local Councils Election Rules 1979
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 30th September, 1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a dispute in connection with the office of Chairman of a Local Council, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner secured 10 votes as against contesting respondent (No. 2) who obtained 9 votes. It was, however, discovered that one Dogar Ali who had proposed the name of the petitioner as a candidate for the office of the Chairman could not become the proposer on account of some proceedings in connection with his own election as Member of the Local Council. Accordingly on a beneficial assumption in favour of the petitioner that Dogar Ali might have voted in his favour only the latter's vote was excluded with the finding that both the petitioner and Muhammad Aslam obtained 9:9 votes. It was further found as a fact that the result of the election was materially effected and a re-election was ordered. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the re-election which having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has relying on Rule 59 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979 contended that notwithstanding any defect in the qualification of the proposer the petitioner could have himself offered as a candidate without the instrumentality of a separate proposer, therefore, the ouster of Dogar Ali as a proposer as also as a voter would not make any material difference in so far as the result of the election is concerned, because both the candidates, as held by the Tribunal concerned, having obtained equal votes it was mandatory under the law to declare one of the candidates elected in accordance with the legal procedure permitting the drawing of lots. In other words he further explained in the circumstances of this case it could not be validly held that the result of the election had been materially effected due to the ouster of Dogar Ali proposer.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal because it was for the forum concerned, keeping in view the relevant law and the facts of the case to declare whether or not the election was materially effected. Moreover, it cannot be said with any certainty that the ouster of Dogar Ali would have affected only one vote. It is not known how, important that one vote was and as to how much influence Dogar Ali had on other voters who might have voted in favour of the petitioner.
His being a proposer, it cannot be said will certainty that it did not make any difference in so far as the casting of other votes is concerned. Be that as it may as already observed it is not a fit case for interference with the findings of the Election Tribunal. This petition accordingly is dismissed.