ZAHIR SHAH vs NAZIR AHMAD And 5 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition filed by the respondent against an order of the Election Tribunal. The dispute originated from the election for a District Council seat in Ward No. 12, Swat, where the petitioner was declared the returned candidate. The respondent challenged this result before the Election Tribunal, which initially dismissed the election petition after framing issues and recording evidence. Subsequently, the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court's exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to remand the matter caused prejudice to the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of the remand order, while maintaining the interim order previously in place. The matter is directed to be heard on the existing record, with parties granted liberty to file additional documents.
- Does the High Court have the authority to remand an election dispute to the Election Tribunal for a fresh decision?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an Election Tribunal's order?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--- This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Zahir Shah petitioner against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 23-4-1989 whereby writ petition against the order of the Election Tribunal Malakand Division dated 18-6-1988, filed by Nazir Ahmad respondent No.1 was accepted.
2. The brief facts are that on 30-12-1987 election of Ward No.12 Swat for District Council seat was contested amongst the petitioner and Nazir Ahmad, Inayat Khan and Hukmat Khan respondents.
3. As a result the petitioner was declared as returned candidate. Nazir Ahmad respondent No.1 challenged the election of the petitioner before the Election Tribunal respondent No.2 which was accepted by the petitioner and he submitted his written statement. The learned Election Tribunal framed different issues on the pleadings of the parties and thereafter recording the evidence, dismissed the election petition vide order, dated 18-6-1988.
4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal the respondent No.1 filed Constitutional petition in the Peshawar High Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Election Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.
5. The question for consideration in this petition is whether or not any prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the learned High Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction by remanding the case to the Election Tribunal for fresh decision. Leave to appeal is granted. Interim order will continue.
6. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000.
7. Appeal is to be made ready on the present record for an early hearing. However, the parties are allowed to file additional documents, if any.