MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Another
Muhammad Suleman petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 19-6-1984, which dismissed his writ petition in an election matter. The core legal question involved whether the Election Tribunal's order declaring certain votes invalid without detailed reasons and the alleged discrepancy in the Presiding Officer's signatures warranted constitutional intervention. The Supreme Court held that the contentions had been properly dealt with and repelled by the High Court, and the petitioner failed to find any fault in the High Court's reasoning. Consequently, the Court decided that the case was not a fit one for interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that where findings of fact by an Election Tribunal regarding the validity of votes and signatures are affirmed by the High Court with sound reasoning, the Supreme Court will not interfere under appellate jurisdiction unless perversity or legal flaw is demonstrated.
- Whether an Election Tribunal is required to give detailed reasons for declaring certain votes invalid?
- Does an alleged discrepancy in the signatures of the Presiding Officer on election documents warrant interference by the High Court?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the Election Tribunal and the High Court in an election matter?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Muhammad Suleman petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 19-6-1984. Dismissing his writ petition in an election matter.
2. Facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 contested Election from Ward No.7 Chak No.122 Shumali, Union Council No.71, Chak No.138, Janoobi, Tehsil and District Sargodha. The petitioner got 140 votes whereas respondent No.2 got 135 votes and as such the petitioner was declared elected, which was duly notified. Thereupon respondent No.2 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal (respondent No.1) praying therein for recounting of the votes and for a declaration that the election was void, and with further prayer that, he (respondent No.2) be declared as having been elected as Member. The Election Tribunal accepted the election petition and declared respondent No.2 as elected, vide its order dated 28-10-1983.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (No. 4756/83) which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
2. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length and have also gone through the impugned judgment. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel on petitioner's behalf before the High Court was that the Election Tribunal had not given any reasons for its order declaring certain votes of the petitioner to be invalid and secondly that the signatures of the Presiding Officer on various documents were not in the handwriting of the same person. We notice that theses contentions have been dealt with and repelled by the learned High Court and the petitioner's counsel has not been able to find any fault with the reasoning of the learned Judges in repelling these contentions. As such we do not, therefore, think this to be a fit case for interference.