WILAYAT KHAN vs REHAM DAD And Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his writ petition challenging the Election Tribunal's order dated 22-10-1983. The parties had contested a Local Council Election where a tie was resolved by drawing lots in favor of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 challenged the election via an election petition under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Election Tribunal recounted the votes upon the respondent's narrowed objections, found one vote cast for the petitioner to be invalid, and declared the respondent successful. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal's failure to frame formal issues under the Election Petition Rules vitiated the recount and decision. The Supreme Court held that strict compliance with civil procedure was not necessary in such matters, provided the Tribunal did what was essential to resolve the dispute, and that substantial justice had been done. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary for an Election Tribunal?
- Does the failure of an Election Tribunal to frame issues vitiate the recount of votes?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an election order where substantial justice has been done?
- Section 24, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN. J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dismissing his writ petition whereby he had challenged the order of the Election Tribunal, dated 22-10-1983.
2. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 contested the Local Council Election held on 28-9-1983 for a seat in Ward No.6, Union Council Karianwala, District Gujrat. As a result of the counting of the votes immediately after the election each of the candidates was found to have obtained 139 votes. Lots were consequently drawn and the petitioner was declared as successful.
The respondent challenged his election through an election petition under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Before the Election Tribunal, respondent No.1 made a statement withdrawing all objections, except the objection relating to counting. Consequently the Election Tribunal recounted the votes and found that one of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner was invalid. Therefore, it declared Raham Dad respondent as having been elected from the constituency in question.
3.Feeling -aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Before the High Court his contention was that the Election Tribunal had not strictly followed the procedure laid down by rule 8 of the Election Petition Rules, inasmuch as it had not framed any issue in respect of the question in dispute. But this contention did not find favour with the High Court and it dismissed his writ petition vide the impugned order.
Hence the present petition.
4. The petitioner's counsel has urged the same contention before us. We are however, inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that in such matters strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by the C.P.C. Was not necessary and the Election Tribunal did what was essential to resolve the dispute relating to the alleged mistake in the counting of votes. We are of the view that substantial justice has been done in this case and we do not consider it a fit case for interference.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any force.
Cited by 6 cases
- MEHMOOD-UL-HASSAN BABAR KHAN vs LIAQAT ALI KARIM and 9 others 2002 YLR 2227
- Sardar REHMAT ULLAH DOGAR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR 1999 MLD 2847
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN BUTT vs Sheikh ZULFIQAR ALI and 4 others 1999 MLD 2602
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN BUTT vs SHEIKH ZULFIQAR ALI And Other K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 534
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN BUTT vs SHEIKH ZULRIQAR ALI And Other K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 364
- MUHAMMAD SHAJAHAT RAJA vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL (SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE), ISLAMABAD And 2 Other K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 341