GUL SHER AHMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court regarding a local council election dispute. The petitioner, initially declared the winner via a draw of lots after tying with his rival at 220 votes each, saw his election challenged before an Election Tribunal. Upon a recount, the Tribunal determined the petitioner received 218 votes while his opponent received 219, resulting in the opponent being declared the winner. The petitioner challenged this outcome, arguing that a specific ballot marked with an 'R' was improperly excluded due to an unclear mark. The Supreme Court examined the Tribunal's findings and noted that visual inspection confirmed the marking itself was doubtful and not clearly affixed as required. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal error or justification for interference. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming that where the validity of a ballot mark is factually determined to be doubtful by the Tribunal, no grounds for appellate intervention exist.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an Election Tribunal's factual determination regarding the validity of a ballot mark?
- Does the exclusion of a ballot due to an unclear mark constitute a legal error warranting appellate review?
- Is a candidate entitled to leave to appeal when the Election Tribunal has factually determined that a ballot mark was doubtful?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in this local council Election matter against the dismisssa l by the High Court of petitioner's writ petition.
2. ' Petitioner was elected to a local council with 220 votes. His rival candidate had also polled 220 votes and the petitioner won through the draw of lots. His election having been challenged, the Election Tribunal on re-count determined petitioner's votes at 218, while the contestant's votes were counted as 219 and thus the latter was declared elected.
3. ' The petitioners writ petition having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has reiterated all the arguments advanced in the High Court, but, failed to meet the observations in the impugned judgment in reply to those contentions. However, he has raised an additional argument that at least one vote marked as "R" has been wrongly excluded from his count on the mere ground that the mark affixed on it was not clear. The argument is that the placing of the mark was not wrong and no rule had been contravened.
4. A perusal of the observation in this behalf made by the Election Tribunal shows that it was not established by visual examination that the required mark had itself been affixed. The words used are {{URDU TEXT}} ' This in the context clearly meant that the marking itself was doubtful. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused.
5. ' Leave to .