2003 PLP 1034 (CLC)

Mir. Zaman 18 5 23

2. Muhammad Latif 175 43 218 As a. result of the said recount total number of votes of respondent No.2 were found to .be 494 while those of petitioner found to be

457. Consequently the election petition was allowed and respondent l' No.2 was declared elected instead of the petitioner.

2. This writ petition came up before me on 25-10-2002 when upon examination of the file I found that neither in the daily order-sheet nor in the judgment, itself any reason stands recorded by the learned Election Tribunal as to why did he proceed to reject five votes of respondent No.2 and 43 votes of the petitioner. 1, therefore, called upon the learned Tribunal to state the reasons and to file a report. The report has been received today and the reasons stated by the learned Election Tribunal are as follows:-- "The votes were rejected of both the parties in recounting in their presence because-- (i) The same were not either signed-by the A.P.Os. on the back of ballot papers. or (ii) The official seal was not affixed on ballot papers. or (iii) The stamp on more than one- symbol The votes were rejected of both parties in recounting in presence of parties and they signed the envelopes." I am afraid the said reasoning is neither here nor there. At least this Court cannot comprehend as to how many votes were rejected for which of the respective reasons stated above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since no reasons have been stated in the judgment and from the said reasoning filed by the learned Election Tribunal, it cannot be determined as to how many votes were rejected for which of the said reasons to enable this Court to determine whether the rejection was valid or not, the matter be sent back. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, on the other hand, states that the recount was made in presence of the parties without any objection. Upon further examination of the file, I have noted that whereas in the daily order-sheet the learned Election Tribunal has observed that Mir Zaman, respondent No.3 has 494 votes and Muhammad Latif petitioner has 457 votes; in the result tabulated in the judgment in para.5 he has mentioned the said votes as 460. 4. 1 cannot help observing that the learned Election Tribunal has proceeded in very, to say the least, casual and callous manner while deciding such a sensitive question between the said contesting parties. I may state here the procedure to be adopted by the learned Election Tribunals while holding recount after accepting the request of one or the other party or in compliance with orders issued by the superior Courts: -- (i) The relevant records (bags) to be summoned and to be opened in presence of the parties and their counsel, unless the. learned counsel or the party makes an express statement that the process be continued in absence of, the learned. counsel or the parties as the case may be. (ii) The outcome of the recount to be noted in detail in daily order sheet. (iii) If a valid ballot paper is determined to be an invalid by the Election Tribunal, the reason to be stated as to why it has been so declared invalid. (iv) If an invalid ballot paper is determined to be a valid ballot paper, the reason to be stated for the said determination. (v) Upon conclusion of the said proceedings, the learned counsel as well as the parties present to be asked to sign the proceedings and to record objections if any thereon, (vi) Thereafter the result to be tabulated on the order-sheet itself and if further proceedings are not required, judgment be recorded accordingly.

5. I am left with no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Election Tribunal. The result would be that the election petition filed by the respondent No.3 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Election Tribunal before whom the parties shall appear on 12-11-2002. The Election Tribunal shall immediately proceed E to summon the election records for a date to be fixed within the month of November, 2002 to conduct the recount in the manner stated above and to decide the petition on or before 30-11-2002.

6. No order as to costs.

7. A copy of this judgment be sent to all the learned Election Tribunals in Rawalpindi Division by the office.