1983C L C 2160 (PLP)

(c) bear, display or carry any document, sign, insignia, flag or any other thing indicating his association with or affiliation to a ,political party ; (d) seek the votes or sympathies of the people on party, basis of , the manifesto of any political party ; or (e) seek the votes or support of the people by attributing direct or indirect party affiliations to any of his opponents. This petition was contested by Ghulam Hussain petitioner who denied the allegations levelled against him in the amended petition. This petition was, however, transferred to the Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh by the Election Authority. The Tribunal recorder: the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties .and vide his order dated 21st June, 1981 accepted the petition. Hence this writ petition.

3. At the time of admission, i.e. 30th June, 1981, Mian M. Zafar Yasin, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended inter alla that the impugned order of respondent No. 1 was without jurisdiction inasmuch as he was not notified as Election Tribunal under section 25 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. On the previous date, the learned counsel had vehemently contended that the learned Additional District Judge; respondent No. 1 was not competent to hear the petition; because he was not notified as Election Tribunal for Muzaffargarh Municipality and that the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh was .notified as Election Tribunal for all Union Councils of Muzaffargarh District.

4. Today the learned counsel has conceded that the Election Autho rity which had transferred the case to respondent No: 1 was competent to do so and as such it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdic tion to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition. He has, however, raised the following points : ‑ (i) That respondent No. 2 was not permitted to amend the prayer made by him in the amended petition, ‑and as such he was not entitled to ask for the relief prayed by him in the petition. (ii) That the Election Tribunal has not mentioned particular provisions of law under which he bad accepted the petition and .also has not stated in clear terms the consequences of the grant of the petition, t, (iii) That the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and his judgment is based on misreading of evidence. As against this the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the reasons that as for point No. (i), respondent No. 2 had sought amendment in the peti tion in order to confine the same within the ambit of section 121‑A of the aforementioned Ordinance and as such he could make the prayer as made by him before the Election Authority. To our mind, this prayer is in accordance with section 21‑A of the afore said Ordinance. So far as point No. (ii) is concerned we have not been impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel presented in support of this point. The amended petition, nature of the allegations and the relief claimed clearly show the provisions under which the impugned order has been passed. The Election Tribunal has stated in the last para. of its judgment :‑ "The comparison and analysis of the parties evidence assists to con clude that the evidence led by the petitioner is comparatively more natural, independent, trustworthy and reliable. Besides, respon dent never attempted to disclose the stand in the course of cross -examination of the P. Ws. Hence the petition is granted." It is therefore, very much clear that the relief prayed for in the amended petition has been allowed. Moreover, it is not very much necessary for the Tribunal to quote particular section or state in so many words, the consequences of the grant of the petition. As for the last point, we find that the respondent No. 2 had examined witnesses in support of the allega tions, which are covered by section 21‑A of the aforementioned Ordinance. It was within the authority of respondent No. 1 to believe the evidence or not. The Tribunal bad applied its mind to the evidence produced by the parties and has given reasons in support of its conclusion. In these circum stances, we do not desire to interfere in the matter. " For what has been stated above we do not see any force in this peti tion and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.