Syed GHULAM MUJTABA vs THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE_ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an Election Tribunal's decision to declare an election for a local seat in Ward No. 7, Town Committee, Sohawa, void. The petitioner, who was declared the winner by a margin of one vote, challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal failed to establish that the alleged illegal practices—specifically the casting of three unauthorized votes by female voters—affected the election result or were attributable to the petitioner. The core legal question is whether an election can be declared void due to irregularities without proof that such irregularities materially affected the outcome or constituted corrupt practices under the relevant election rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the lack of evidence of corrupt practices and the absence of proof that the disputed votes were cast for the petitioner required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court stayed the holding of fresh elections pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Can an election be declared void without evidence that alleged illegal practices materially affected the result?
- Is it necessary to prove that disputed votes were cast in favor of a specific candidate to invalidate an election based on those votes?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence of corrupt or illegal practices under the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979 to warrant setting aside an election?
- Rule 72, Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979
- Rule 73, Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979
- Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The election to a local seat from Ward No.7, Town Committee, Sohawa, District Jhelum, was held on 30-11-1987. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 contested the election. The petitioner was declared elected having polled 227 votes against 226 votes polled by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal. As many as 7 issues were framed by the Election Tribunal. Issue No.4 was decided against the petitioner and all other issues were decided against the respondent.
2. The Election Tribunal declared the election as a whole void and ordered the holding of fresh election. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 18-12- 1989. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
3. The controversy in this petition is that three female voters who did not belong to Ward No.7 cast their votes in this election. Their names had been deleted from the voters' list. There was difference of two votes only. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Election Tribunal has declared that the election was not conducted in a fair manner. Extensive illegal practices were adopted. The learned counsel has referred to Rules 72 and 73 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 and submitted that none of the corrupt and illegal practices listed in these rules were either alleged or proved before the Election Tribunal. It was further submitted that there was nothing on the record to indicate that these votes were cast in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the case proceeded on no evidence.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require examination. Leave is granted. Security Rs.5,000. Elections are stayed in the meanwhile.
5. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.