MLD 2002

2002 PLP 623 (MLD)

JAVAID IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/RETURNING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL CHUNIAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 13407 of 2001, decided on 28th September, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 623 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J
Parties JAVAID IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/RETURNING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL CHUNIAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 623 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 623 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 623 (MLD) (JAVAID IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/RETURNING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL CHUNIAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑

Representation

  • Dr. Z. Badar Awan for Petitioner.
  • Miss Azra Riaz for Respondent No.5.
  • Rana Muhammad Arif on behalf of Qazi Muhammad Shafique for Respondent No.3.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Rr. 11, 39 & 40(3)‑‑‑Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000), Ss. 12. & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Re‑counting of votes‑‑‑Directions issued by Chief Election Commissioner‑‑‑Petitioners being dissatisfied with the counting of votes, immediately challenged the same before the Chief Election Commissioner who passed direction to the Returning Officer for re‑counting of the votes‑‑‑Returning Officer did not comply with the directions passed by the Chief Election Commissioner and instead of re counting the votes, notified the result of election‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Votes in the present case, were not re‑counted and the result was notified against the directions of the Chief Election Commissioner, petitioners were deprived of their right which accrued to them before issuance of Notification in their favour for re‑counting of votes‑‑‑Where the Returning Officer failed to act upon the orders of the Chief Election Commissioner, the notification of election result would be illegal, void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Such order passed by the Returning Officer was set aside‑‑‑Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. 1999 SCMR 2999 and 1999 MLD 2602 ref. Ch. Muhammad Jehangir Wahla, A.A.‑G. Nayyar Iqbal DDO (R), Chunian.

Judgment & Decree

Miss Azra Riaz for Respondent No.5. Rana Muhammad Arif on behalf of Qazi Muhammad Shafique for Respondent No.3. Ch. Muhammad Jehangir Wahla, A.A.‑G. Nayyar Iqbal DDO (R), Chunian. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 9‑7‑2001 passed by respondent No. 1 to be declared as illegal, void, unlawful, mala fide and of no legal consequence. It is further prayed that the rejected votes of the petitioner may be ordered to be re‑counted.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and respondents' Nos. 3 to 6 contested Election jointly for the Seat of Nazim and Naib‑Nazim from Union Council No.18, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur held on 2nd Julys 2001. The petitioners after count of votes requested the Returning Officer of the said Union Council for counting of rejected votes who did not accept their request. The petitioners moved an application to Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad who directed the respondent No. 1 tore‑count the votes of the candidates who have contested the Election in the said Union Council. This order was passed by the learned Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan on 7‑7‑2001 and was duly faxed to respondent No.

1. Respondent No. 1 also issued notice to all the candidates who had contested the Election for the Seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim and fixed the date for re‑counting on 9‑7 2001. On 9‑7‑2001 instead of re counting the order was passed that as he has already notified the result on 7‑7‑2001. and the re‑counting was duly made under sub rule (3) of rule 40 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length but finally he is satisfied if a direction is issued to the learned Chief Election Tribunal for re‑counting of the votes in the peculiar circumstances of the case as he has already filed the election petition under rule 70 of Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 who is successful candidate opposes the prayer which has been cut short by learned counsel for the petitioner that direction for re‑counting be issued on the ground that the Election Petition has been filed before the Chief Election Commissioner for re‑counting evidence is to be recorded by the Election Tribunal. He relied upon 1999 SCMR 299 and 1999 MLD 2602.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the documents attached with this petition and also kept in mind the caselaw cited in this Court. The peculiar circumstances of the case claims the early decision by the Election Tribunal and the ground taken in the election petition is that the votes have not been duly counted by respondent No.

1. The proceedings of respondent No. 1 were challenged immediately after the announcement of the result before Chief Election Commissioner who passed the directives to respondent No. 1 for re‑counting of the same and respondent No. 1 on 7‑7‑2001 issued notice to the other candidates and a date 9‑7‑2001 was fixed for re‑counting, but on 9‑7‑2001 a somersault had been taken by respondent No. 1 and he passed the order that as he has already notified the result hence he has become functus officio and cannot re‑count 'the votes. I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 was bound to act upon the orders of the Chief Election Commissioner and the result was not duly notified. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the petitioners were deprived of their right which accrued, before issuance of Notification, in their favour for re‑counting of votes. Hence, the order dated 9‑7‑2001 passed by respondent No. 1 is declared as illegal, void, without lawful authority and of no legai effect and is set aside. As the petitioners have filed an election petition, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case the Election Tribunal directed to decide the election petition within 60 days after affording equal opportunities to both the parties.

6. With the abovesaid direction this petition is disposed of. Q.M.H./M.A.K:/J‑37/L Order accordingly.