2002 PLP 4024 (YLR)

Akhtar Hussain Chaudhry for Petitioner. Malik Abdul Majid Khan Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 18th June, 2002. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 contested election to a seat reserved for minority in U.C. No. 18, District Kasur. The petitioner was declared returned. The respondent No.2 filed an election petition. He gave the details of the votes cast in para 2 of the election petition which was verified on oath and signed by him. Now in the said paragraph he inter alia, stated that at Polling Station No.175 the respondent No.2 got 50 votes while the petitioner got 28 votes. In the course of the said proceedings the learned Tribunal with the consent of the parties summoned the polling records from Polling Station No. 174 and

175. Upon examination of the contents of the bags for Polling Station No. 174 the result was found in accordance with the result already declared. However, on examination of the records of Polling Station No. 175, 28 votes were found in favour of the respondent No.2 but no vote was found in favour of the petitioner. In the situation the learned counsel for the petitioner objected that it is because of some mistake on the part of the Presiding Officer that the votes cast in his favour were not found in bags and requested that the Presiding Officer be summoned to explain the position. Vide order, dated 7‑2‑2002 the learned Tribunal directed the learned counsel for the "Election Petitioner" to provide particulars of the Presiding Officer. It appears that the said learned Tribunal was transferred and the matter was taken up by his successor‑in‑office on 24‑4‑2002 who proceeded to state that the summoning of the Presiding Officer is not necessary and proceeded to allow the election petition vide judgment dated 24‑42002. The result was that the petitioner was deseated and the respondent No.2 was declared returned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the own pleadings of the respondent No.2, his client got 28 votes at Polling Station No.175 and this circumstance alone necessitated an inquiry as prayed for. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 when confronted is not in a position to oppose the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Having examined the records I do find that the respondent No.2 had himself categorically stated that at Polling Station No. 175 the petitioner got 28 votes whereas not a single vote came out of the bag in favour of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal conducting the proceedings categorically acceded to the request of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer be summoned. It appears that through some mistake it came to be recorded that particulars of the Presiding Officer to be provided by the election petitioner which of course he did not provide but the respondent was penalized for the same.

4. In view of the above discussion this writ petition is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 24‑4‑2002 of the learned Election Tribunal is set aside. The result would be that the election petition filed by the respondent No.2 before Election Tribunal shall be deemed pending, where the parties are directed to appear on 6‑7‑2002. The learned Tribunal shall summon the concerned Presiding Officer with the records and let both the parties question him in the witness -box to explain the said discrepancy. In case the parties including respondent No.2 wish to lead some more evidence to clarify the position they be allowed to do so.

5. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned Election Tribunal, Kasur for further proceedings. S.A.K./N‑242/L Petition accepted.