2004 PLP 1922 (CLC)

3. It later on transpired to the petitioners that Mr. Bahadar Ali Khan was in fact not appointed and notified as Election Tribunal. The said omission had also come to the notice of Election Commission which after inviting fresh proposal appointed the aforesaid Officer as Election Tribunal vide notification, dated 12-9-2003.

4. After his notification as Election Tribunal, respondent No.1 again passed an order on 15-9-2003 on the aforesaid election petition which was already finally disposed of by him earlier on 30-8-2003. The said order is reproduced as under:

"Present: Petitioner Abdul Aziz in person. Nemo for respondents. Notices were issued to the parties. Petitioner Abdul Aziz has turned up today but no one is present on behalf of respondents. The election petition was decided on 30-8-2003. I have been notified as Tribunal by the Election Commission of Pakistan vide order, dated 12-9-2003. I have perused the file and reconsidered the matter but I do not find any change in the previous order, according to which the petition stood accepted and the petitioners Abdul Aziz and Mehboob Hussain have been declared as returned candidates."

5. The aforesaid order is assailed by the petitioners in this Constitutional petition on the grounds that:

(i) no notice was served on the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order which is not a speaking order and is the result of non-application of mind; (ii) the impugned order is not judgment in the eye of law; and (iii) respondent No. 1 was not appointed and notified as Election Tribunal, hence proceedings conducted by him and judgment delivered by him on 30-8-2003 prior to his notification were coram non judice.

6. Writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the grounds that the petitioners had not raised objection regarding jurisdiction before the Election Tribunal and had also participated in the proceedings, hence they are precluded from taking the said objection at this stage and that notice was issued to them for appearance before the Election Tribunal on 15-9-2003 but they intentionally did not appear.

7. Arguments heard. Writ petition and its Annexures perused.

8. It is not denied by the respondents counsel that prior to 12-9-2003, Mr. Bahadar Ali Khan, Additional District and Sessions Judge was never appointed and notified as Election Tribunal, hence judgment whereby he had decided the election petition on 30-8-2003 was obviously without jurisdiction.

9. A perusal of the impugned order passed on 15-9-2003 shows that vide the same, the election petition was finally disposed of. Earlier judgment, dated 30-8-2003 was declared as coram non judice by the Election Commission vide letter Annexure 'E'.

10. Decision of a Tribunal must contain precise controversy of facts and law raised before it and the grounds on which it is accepted or rejected. Decision means judicious determination of dispute between the parties specifying grounds and substantial reasons for arriving at the particular decision. It should be self-contained and conveniently intelligible.

11. The impugned decision does not conform to the aforesaid criterion, hence it cannot be deemed as a decision/judgment in the eye of law. It is accordingly declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The election petition would be deemed as pending before respondent No.1 who is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. H.B.T./M-500/L Case remanded.