1992 PLP 1009 (CLC)

‑‑Art 199‑‑‑Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 24‑‑‑Election to Local Council‑‑‑Presiding Officer having initially declared petitioner to be a returned candidate became functus officio, and the result could not be reversed by him‑‑‑Presiding Officer's act reversing his first declaration of result was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. M.D.Tahir for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad AddlA.‑G. for Respondents Nos.1 and

2. Respondent No.3 in person. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1992. The petitioner and respondent No.3 contested election of Local Council from village Sheroke, Union Council Chak No.15/RB Deori, District Sheikhupura. It is alleged by the petitioner that at the close of the election, the Presiding Officer announced the result, whereby the petitioner was declared returned candidate securing 174 votes, while Abdul Majid, respondent No.3 herein getting 135 votes. It is further alleged that the Presiding Officer while forwarding the result to the Returning Officer, reversed the results showing that the petitioner got 135 votes, whereas Abdul Majid respondent No.3 herein, got 174 votes. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, issue Notification No.104112 dated 2‑1‑1992 showing the name of the respondent No.3 as returned candidate in respect of village Shcroke, Union Council Chak. No.15/RB Deori.

2. Respondent No.3 submitted that according to the result announced by the Presiding Officer, he was shown to have secured 174 votes while the petitioner got 135 votes and, therefore, the Notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, showing him as returned candidate did not suffer, from any defect.

3. After hearing the parties and perusing the material placed before me, I am inclined to hold that once the results were announced by the Presiding Officer declaring the petitioner as the returned candidate, whether rightly or wrongly, he became functus officio and the result could not be reversed by him. The only remedy available to the rival candidate is by filing an election petition under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Refer Muhammad Tufail v. Punjab Local Councils Election Authority 1990CLCt;s.

4. In view of the above, the act of the Presiding Officer subsequently declaring the petitioner as a returned candidate and issuance of notification on the basis thereof, declaring respondent No.3 as successful candidate, is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the writ petition is accepted and the Returning Officer, Sheikhupura shall issue a fresh notification in accordance with the result initially declared by the Presiding Officer. It may be clarified that respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to challenge the result of election through election petition under section 24 of Ordinance VI of 1979, on available grounds. If such a petition is made the same shall be decided by the Election Tribunal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A/T‑9/L Petition accepted.