PLD 2003

P L D 2003 Peshawar 20 (PLP)

Syed SHAH JEHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ARSHAD HUSSAIN and 12 others ‑‑‑ Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.749 of 2001, decided on 20th September, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Shahzad Akbar Khan and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 2003 Peshawar 20 (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Shahzad Akbar Khan and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan, JJ
Parties Syed SHAH JEHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ARSHAD HUSSAIN and 12 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2003 Peshawar 20 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2003 Peshawar 20 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Shahzad Akbar Khan and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2003 Peshawar 20 (PLP) (Syed SHAH JEHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ARSHAD HUSSAIN and 12 others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Mohibullah Kakakhel for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing 15th August, 2001.

Headnotes / Summary

North‑West Frontier Province Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr.42(5), 71, 72 & 73‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Election dispute‑‑‑Recounting of ballot papers‑‑ Failure to provide opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence‑‑‑Parties contested election for the seat of peasants and the respondent was declared returned candidate only by one vote‑‑‑In unofficial counting of the ballot papers, the petitioner was declared as returned candidate but in official counting, the Returning Officer only counted the disputed ballots and the respondent was declared successful by one vote instead of the petitioner‑‑ Grievance of the petitioner was that the Election Tribunal had refused to recount the whole ballot papers and without providing any opportunity of producing evidence to the parties had maintained the decision of the Returning Officer‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Was the primary duty of the Election Tribunal to have afforded an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in order to resolve the controversy involved in a proper manner‑‑‑Held, Election Tribunal could order recount of votes in appropriate cases and on satisfaction of requisite conditions‑‑‑Election Tribunal had proceeded on wrong premises and misdirected itself to treat the decision of the Returning Officer as final and wrongly declared the respondent as returned candidate‑‑ Refusal on the part of the Election Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in the matter had materially prejudiced the case of the petitioner‑‑‑Order passed by the Election Tribunal was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in accordance with law‑‑‑Petition was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Sher Khan and another v. Muhammad Ishfaq and others Writ Petition No.322 of 2001 and Muhammad Tariq Zakhmi and another v. Election Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad and 13 others 2002 MLD 284 ref.

Judgment & Decree

IJAZ‑UL‑HASSAN, J.‑‑‑Through instant writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Syed Shah Jehan petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 4‑6‑2001 of learned Sessions Judge/Election Tribunal for Swabi, whereby decision of Returning Officer Union Council Ismaila dated 26‑3‑2001 declaring Muslim Khan respondent No.4 as returned candidate' was treated final and the petition was rejected on the ground that "this Tribunal cannot look into the steps taken towards the recounting or refusal to recount by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer is the best Judge to recount only those votes for which a valid reason has been shown to him. The decision of the Returning Officer is final in this regard".

2. Precisely narrated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that petitioner alongwith respondents Nos. l to 11 contested election for the seat of peasants from Union Council, Ismalia, District Swabi. After election an unofficial counting of the votes was held on 21‑3‑2001 and vide order of respondent No. 12, petitioner alongwith respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were declared as returned candidates. The petitioner had secured 334 votes and on 24‑3‑2901 when the official counting was held instead of petitioner, Muslim Khan respondent No.4 was declared elected for having secured 335 votes. Mian Muhibullah Kakakhel, Advocate for the petitioner contended, inter alia, that the official, counting was restricted to only invalid votes and out of six packets of invalid votes from six polling stations only three packets/bags were opened and counted. He stated that during the official counting one vote marked in favour of the petitioner was also ignored and was not counted towards the votes of the petitioner. As the two results were at variance and the margin of votes was only one, the petitioner approached respondent No. 12 for recounting of the votes. The latter conducted the recounting of three bags of invalid votes and refused to recount the rest of the bags of invalid votes so much so that even one vote which was cast in favour of the petitioner was not counted towards his votes. The learned counsel reiterated that it was mandatory that the whole ballot papers should have been recounted and that refusal on the part of Election Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it has materially prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. The learned counsel prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition either the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be declared elected or in the alternative matter may be remanded with direction to the Tribunal for recording evidence in order to do complete justice between the parties. To substantiate the contentions reliance was placed on an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Muhammad Sher Khan and another v. Muhammad Ishfaq and others Writ Petition No.322 of 2001 and Muhammad Tariq Zakhmi and another v. Election Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge Hafizabad and 13 others 2002 MLD 284 (Lahore).

3. Muslim Khan respondent No.4 the only answering respondent had entered appearance in Court during the early stages of the case but subsequently he decided not to contest the proceedings. Placed ex parte.

4. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to rules 42(5), 71, 72 and 73 of North‑West Frontier Province Local Government Election Rules, 2000 read with BNPS Local Government A Elections Ordinance, 2000 we find ourselves in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has proceeded on wrong premises and misdirected itself to treat the decision dated 26‑3‑2001 of respondent No.12 as final, declaring Muslim Khan respondent No.4 as returned candidate. The refusal on the part of Election Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in the matter has materially prejudiced the case of the petitioner. We feel that it was the primary duty of the Election Tribunal to have afforded an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in order to resolve the controversy involved in a. proper manner. It is not denied that Election Tribunal can order recount of votes in appropriate cases and on satisfaction of requisite conditions.

5. In view of above discussion, we accept the petition, set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 4‑6‑2001 of learned Sessions Judge/Election Tribunal for Swabi and remand the Election Petition to the learned Tribunal with direction to decide the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in accordance with law. As the matter relates to election, same shall be decided as soon as possible not exceeding two months. Q.M.H./M.A.K./620/P Case remanded.