SHAHBAZ KHAN And 3 Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
The matter arises from a petition challenging orders related to District Council Elections in Union Council Dandot, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum, where the petitioner contested for one of two multi-member seats and was defeated. After filing an election petition, the Election Tribunal declared the election as a whole to be void upon a joint statement of counsel and ordered fresh elections. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition and an intra-court appeal in the High Court, both of which were unsuccessful or dismissed as not maintainable, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, fresh elections were held and the petitioner was again defeated, although formal notification of the result was stayed by the court. The core legal question concerned the maintainability and subsistence of the challenge after fresh elections had been conducted. The Supreme Court held that since the elections had already been held and the petitioner was again defeated, the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it accordingly. The key principle laid down is that a petition challenging an election order becomes infructuous when the subsequent fresh elections directed by the tribunal have already taken place.
- Does a petition challenging an election tribunal's order to hold fresh elections become infructuous when the fresh elections are subsequently held?
- Whether an intra-court appeal against an interim order refusing a stay of election is maintainable?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Shahbaz Khan, petitioner, contested election alongwith Muhammad Sadiq, Lal Khan and Gulzar Khan, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the recent District Council Elections on one of the two seats from a multi-member Electoral Unit in Union Council, Dandot, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum.
2. Since only two persons were to be elected, Gulzar and Sadiq were declared successful, having obtained more votes than the other contestants. Gulzar obtained maximum number of votes 298, Sadiq secured 241 and petitioner Shahbaz got 227 votes.
3. The petitioner filed an election Petition challenging the election of Sadiq, respondent. On the joint statement of the counsel for the parties the Election Tribunal, by its order, dated 6-5-1980 declared the election as a whole to be void. Consequently, fresh elections were ordered to be held for the two seats.
4. The petitioner challenged the order of the Election Tribunal through a writ petition in the High Court which was admitted to regular hearing. The petitioner also filed an application praying for the stay of the Elections but it was dismissed by order, dated 28-6-1980. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of stay, the petitioner filed an I.-C.A., against the above-mentioned interim order. But the I.- C. A. Was dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, the present petition.
5. The petitioner also filed an application for stay before this Court on which the learned Chief Justice was pleased to order that holding of the polls could not be stayed but the result of the election may not be formally notified during the pendency of this petition.
6. The learned counsel admitted before us that the elections have already been held and that he has again been defeated, although the result has not yet been finalized and notified by the Returning Officer as ordered by the learned Chief Justice.
In view of the above-noted admission, it is evident that the petition has become infructuous. It is, therefore, dismissed as such.