2025 PLP 169 (MLD)

Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J.

Through this election petition, the petitioner. has called into question the election in PP-142 Sheikhupura-VII, inter alia, on the grounds that massive rigging was committed by pressurizing voters to poll in favour of the returned candidate, at the behest of some influential person who is one of supporter of the returned candidate.

2. Mr. Rizwan-ul-Hassan-learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has raised several objections as to the maintainability of this election petition including that (i) petition does not contain any verification by the petitioner, (ii) the attached affidavit is defective in several respects, (iii) no affidavit of service is attached with this petition and (iv) the election petition is barred by one day. The objections are opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Heard.

4. The Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court in several cases including "Col. (R) Muhammad Shabir Awan v. Raja Saghir Ahmed and 4 others" (PLD 2023 Lahore 458) has already settled that section 145 of the Election Act, 2017 (the 'Act') contemplates that if any provision contained in sections 142 to 144 of the Act is not complied with, this Tribunal cannot wait till the culmination of the proceedings through regular trial and it is mandate of law to reject the plaint. Similar view has also been adopted in case titled "Malik Muhammad Nawaz v. Khayal Ahmad and others" (2019 CLC 960). The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Sardar Abdul Rehman v. Abdul Kareem Khetran and others" (2021 SCMR 82) concluded that section 144(4) of the Act is mandatory, violation whereof, would inevitably result into summary rejection of the petition as is evident from the plain language of subsection (1) of section 148 of the Act. It has also been ruled in the said judgment that it is incumbent upon the petitioner to follow the procedure expressly provided by the Act itself; and when the same is not followed by him, such petition is liable to be rejected. Further reference can be made to cases titled "Lt.-Col (Rtd.) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah v. Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana and others" (2015 SCMR 1585) and "Mir Mujib-Ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani v. Returning Officer, PB-41 Washuk and others" (PLD 2020 SC 718).

5. In the present case, instead of any verification, at the bottom of this petition following certificate is given:- CERTIFICATE: "As per instructions it is certified that this is first Petition on the subject before this Honourabe Court." This petition is accompanied by an affidavit and the verification of the same does not reflect that which paragraph is verified on the basis of personal knowledge and which paragraph is being verified on account of belief of the election-petitioner. After survey of the complete case laws on the subject, this Court in case titled "Abdul Wahab Baloch v. Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi and others" (PLD 2019 Lahore 119) reached to the conclusion that even a short affidavit is sufficient if it duly fulfills the requirement of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code and at the same time that identification of deponent before the Oath Commissioner should be with reference to his / her National Identity Card and the word "solemn affirmation before me" in the stamp of the Oath Commissioner should indicate that election-petitioner was present before the Oath Commissioner at the time of attestation and the oath was administered. Scanned image of verification and the stamp of the Oath Commissioner is pasted below for proper appreciation:- The above is self-evident of the fact that the same is deficient in material respects including the requirement of identification of deponent with reference to his National Identification Card. Identification is reflected by someone whose name is not even legible.

6. Mr. Rizwan-ul-Hassan has invited the attention of this Court towards judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in case titled "Inayatullah v. Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and others" (2014 SCMR 1477) and stated that while interpreting the provision of law which is in peri materia to relevant provision of the Act the Honourable Supreme Court has held that no presumption is attached to service through courier and it is inevitable to attach affidavit of service. Learned counsel stated that law settled by the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon this Tribunal and no different view can be adopted. Learned counsel further relied on "Abdul Wahab Baloch" case (supra) and it is stated that section 144 of the Act mandatorily requires appending affidavit of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to answer this objection, who acknowledged before me that the petitioner remained negligent in appending affidavit of service. He attempted to explain this deficiency by stating that petition was filed by some other learned counsel. I am 1 afraid that this cannot be taken as a valid explanation for non-compliance of the provision of law.

7. It is also noticed that attribution is made to someone holding a constitution post in the Province with the allegation that he influenced the election in the given constituency, however, the petitioner has failed to give any particulars or even the name of the person to whom such attribution is made. Even the affidavits of the witnesses are silent as to this aspect. All the 14 affidavits are identical to each other. Only the names of the witnesses are changed by repeating the same allegation.

8. The petition is in defiance of the necessary requirements of the Act. Resultantly, this petition is rejected. No order as to cost. SA/M-112/L Petition dismissed.