2008 PLP 1556 (MLD)
Doctor NAZIR AHMAD alias MITHU DOGAR — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1556 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Doctor NAZIR AHMAD alias MITHU DOGAR — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1556 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1556 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1556 (MLD) (Doctor NAZIR AHMAD alias MITHU DOGAR — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.39(6)
Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, R.26(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Prayer for recounting of votes,
Refusal of Election Commission and District Returning Officer to accept such prayer of petitioner
Power to recount votes and include challenged ballot papers after scrutiny vested with Returning Officer
Petitioner had not approached Returning Officer for such purpose, but had approached High Court without availing such appropriate remedy available to him under law
High Court dismissed constitutional petition for being incompetent.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner has assailed in this constitutional petition, orders, dated 21-2-2008, passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3, whereby the request of the petitioner for recounting of votes, was declined.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that order of respondent No.3 lacks of elements of reasoning and is a non-speaking order. Adds further that section 39(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, provides that the Returning Officer is empowered in issuing direction for recounting of the votes, if it is observed that the request of the candidate or of his polling agent, is genuine. Learned counsel, while referring to Rule 26 of Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, has submitted that the Returning Officer has to exclude from the count, challenged ballot papers and scrutinize each ballot paper, which was excluded from the count by the Presiding Officer. Returning Officer is vested with the authority to count an invalid ballot paper, cast in favour of a contesting candidate, if it is found that it should not have been excluded from the count by the Presiding Officer. Learned counsel has submitted that there is a narrow margin and propriety demands that recounting, which was a right course, should have been adopted.
3. Learned Law Officer has raised objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer and record perused.
5. The petitioner has referred to Rule 26(3) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 and section 39(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and has voiced his grievance that the respondents have not proceeded in accordance with law, under the above referred provisions. The perusal of record reflects that petitioner has never approached the Returning Officer. The powers, for recounting of the votes and to include challenged ballot papers, after scrutiny, vest with the Returning Officer. Petitioner has not approached the Returning Officer in the case in hand. He has moved an application before the District Returning Officer, who has neither power under Rule 26(3) ibid or under section 39 (6) ibid to pass the appropriate orders. The petitioner has approached this Court, without availing the appropriate remedy available to him, under the law.
6. As such, this petition is not competent and is accordingly dismissed. S.A.K./N-37/L Petition dismissed.