2010 PLP 1490 (CLC)
Chaudhary PERVEZ ELAHI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAIZ TAMMAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1490 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal, Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Chaudhary PERVEZ ELAHI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAIZ TAMMAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1490 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1490 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal, Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1490 (CLC) (Chaudhary PERVEZ ELAHI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAIZ TAMMAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Farooq Haider for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Kabir for Respondent No.1.
- 4. Raja Saim-ul-Haq Satti, Advocate High Court is appointed as Local Commission for recording the evidence of the parties. His fee would be Rs.25,000 to be paid by the parties equally. The parties would appear before him on 14-6-2010. He will give suitable date to the parties, record the evidence and submit the file within three weeks.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 39(3) & 52
Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, R.26(2)
Re-counting of votes
Scope
Re-count could not be ordered in routine
Factum of non-checking of rejected votes at time of consolidations of results by Returning Officer must be proved by evidence
Recount could not be ordered without recording evidence to such effect.
Judgment & Decree
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that ballot papers rejected by Presiding Officer and excluded from count were not checked at the time of consolidation of results by Returning Officer as provided under section 39(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1976 and Rule 26(2) of the Election Rules 1977 and as such result was materially effected and gross miscarriage of justice was caused so recount is imperative. In support of the contention raised reliance is placed on Sahihzada Muhammad Nazeer Sultan v. Saima Akhtar Bharwana and others PLD 2007 Lahore 141, Muhammad Sarwar and another v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 17 others 2006 YLR 502, and Muhammad Tariq Zakhmi and another v. Election Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge Hafizabad and 13 others 2002 MLD 284.
2. The learned counsel for the returned candidate (respondent No.1) has contended that the consolidation was conducted in accordance with law and the rejected votes were duly checked as is reflected in the statement under Form-XVI. It is contended that the contesting candidates and their election agents were present at the time so no ground is available to recount the ballot papers.
3. The recount cannot be ordered in routine and it must be proved as a fact that the rejected votes were not checked at the time of consolidation. Without recording the evidence in this regard no order can be passed. In this respect reliance is placed on Kanwar and 2 others Irshad Ali and 2 others PLD 1986 SC 483, Pervaiz Bashir Waraich and another v. Election Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge Hafizabad and 4 others 2006 CLC 1407, Rai Asghar Ali Khan v. District and Sessions Judge Kasur and 2 others 2002 YLR 1324, Muhammad Saeed Qazi and another v. Election Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge Lahore and 16 others 2004 CLC 631, Nadeem Ahmad Wains and another v. Election Tribunal and 5 others PLJ 2006 Lahore 209 and Zulfiqar Ali v. Election Tribunal/ Civil Judge Ist Class Khanpur and 5 others 2000 MLD
746. The civil Miscellaneous is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed. An issue has already been framed in this regard and the matter would be decided after recording the evidence.
4. Raja Saim-ul-Haq Satti, Advocate High Court is appointed as Local Commission for recording the evidence of the parties. His fee would be Rs.25,000 to be paid by the parties equally. The parties would appear before him on 14-6-2010. He will give suitable date to the parties, record the evidence and submit the file within three weeks. S.A.K./P-17/L Order accordingly.