1989 PLP 1197 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against acceptance by the High Court, of a Writ Petition arising out of an election dispute regarding a local Council. It was filed by respondent No. 5 whose nomination papers for the disputed election were rejected by the Election Authorities. The High Court having set aside the orders in this behalf impugned before it, held the nomination papers of respondent No. 5 as valid and directed fresh elections: which was earlier concluded in favour of the petitioner as the sole unopposed candidate mainly on account of the rejection of the respondent's nomination papers. The rejection of nomination papers was due to the reason that they appeared to have been tampered with. The election was for Ward No. 2 of the concerned Town Committee, while the nomination papers contained some entries showing Ward No.

12. The moot question was whether the nomination papers were filed for Ward No.12 and not for Ward No. 2 and further that whether the figure one was added with figure 2 genuinely, fictitiously or fraudulently. The High Court after hearing, carefully considered the controversy and came to the following conclusion:‑ "In view of what has been said above, we are satisfied that the petitioner who was a resident and voter of Ward No. 2, filed his nomination papers for contesting elections from this ward and he was proposed by Muhammad Mansha who, too, was a voter in the said ward. Somebody interested in excluding the petitioner from the contest made a crude attempt to change the number of the ward from 2 to 12 by tampering with the nomination papers. In the circumstances, we hold that the impugned orders rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner suffer from vitiative infirmity of misreading the relevant record and as such they cannot be sustained and are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and consequently, election of respondent No.4 is also set aside. Writ petition is thus allowed with the direction that the concerned authorities shall formally accept the nomination papers of the petitioner and hold election for Ward No.2 in accordance with law after completing necessary formalities." Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two‑fold contention:‑‑ (i) that the High Court could not have entertained the Writ Petition as another adequate remedy was available to the contesting respondent (No.5); and (ii) that the findings by the High Court relate to question of fact, therefore, the High Court should have declined to render them; in any case, the said findings arc based on misreading of the record. We heard the learned counsel on the last question raised by him. After examining the relevant record placed before this Court, we are satisfied that the High Court did not commit any error of misreading; on the contrary, it corrected some obvious elements of misreading by the Election Authorities, who had also ignored some material features of nomination papers. That being so, the High Court was not wrong in correcting the said authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner has no case on merits `for grant of leave to appeal. Regarding the objection about the other remedy, suffice it to say that this plea was not pressed before the High Court during the arguments as is apparent from the impugned judgment which is otherwise elaborate. That being so, in the circumstances of this case, particularly when the petitioner would now have an opportunity of contesting the election instead of winning the same on doubtful basis, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal on this point. In view of what is stated above, leave to appeal is refused. M.BA./Z‑53/S Leave refused.