1991 PLP 1880 (SCMR)
MEHBOOB ALI SANI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1880 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MEHBOOB ALI SANI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1880 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1880 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1880 (SCMR) (MEHBOOB ALI SANI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1989.
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8-4-1989, passed in Writ Petition No.1478 of 1989).
Ss. 24 & 25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Election petition-- Election Tribunal after a thorough investigation found that certain valid ballot papers of respondent were tampered with and declared respondent as returned candidate as he had obtained more votes as compared to petitioner and order of Tribunal was upheld by High Court
Finding of fact recorded by Tribunal was based on evidence on record and High Court could not reappraise evidence recorded by Tribunal
Finding of Courts below, thus could not be interfered with by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 8‑4‑1989, whereby his Writ Petition No.1478 of 1989 against the order of the Additional District Judge (respondent No.1) was dismissed. The subject‑matter in dispute of this petition is regarding the election to the membership of Municipal Committee, Toba Tek Singh, Ward No.16, held in November, 1987, wherein according to the result of the count conducted by Presiding Officer, Muhammad Yunis respondent No.2 had obtained 477 votes as against 469 polled in favour of Mehboob Ali Sani petitioner. Respondent No.2 was declared as returned candidate. However, the third candidate had secured only 15 votes. The petitioner challenged the said election on various grounds before the Election Tribunal which was contested by the respondent No.2. The record of the election was summoned and the votes were recounted. The learned Tribunal found that the petitioner had obtained 461 valid votes as against 448/450 secured by the respondent No.2 and declared him as elected to the said Ward. Respondent No.2 filed a writ petition against the order of Election Tribunal which was accepted by the Lahore High Court and the case was remanded for holding enquiry into the allegations made by the respondent No.2 regarding tampering with his 37 valid ballot papers. The learned Tribunal after a thorough investigation into the matter found that 37 valid ballot papers of the respondent No.2 were tampered and he was held to have obtained 477 votes as against 469 polled by the petitioner. The election petition was, however, dismissed. The petitioner being aggrieved filed with petition in the Lahore High Court against the said order which was dismissed in limine vide impugned judgment. The learned counsel is support of this petition contended that evidence of the witnesses who repelled the allegations of tampering with the ballot papers while these were in the official custody has not been considered. It is also contended that there was no finding which could be formed the basis of the judgment in the High Court. We have gone through the judgment of the learned High Court and found ourselves in agreement with it that the High Court could not reappraise the evidence recorded by the Election Tribunal and the finding of tampering with the ballot papers is a finding of fact. Thus, there is no case for the 'interference with the impugned order by this Court. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1085/S Petition dismissed.