1986 PLP 609 (CLC)
ALI HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MAQBOOL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 609 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | ALI HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MAQBOOL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 609 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 609 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 609 (CLC) (ALI HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MAQBOOL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979‑‑ ‑‑‑R.42‑‑List of Count‑‑Proof of‑‑Presiding Officer's statement about preparation of record of count being not in consonance with relevant record, held, could not be believed‑‑View of Tribunal justified in circumstances. (b) Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979‑‑ ‑‑‑R.42‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Ballot‑papers cast in favour of candidates missing‑‑Envelopes and other material containing ballot‑papers also missing‑‑List of count presented in Court not signed by candidates or agents‑‑Case, held, was not of destruction of record but of preparation of fake record‑‑Tribunal was justified in setting aside election‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, not warranted in circum stances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑R.42‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Ballot‑papers cast in favour of candidates missing‑‑Envelopes and other material containing ballot‑papers also missing‑‑List of count presented in Court not signed by candidates or agents‑‑Case, held, was not of destruction of record but of preparation of fake record‑‑Tribunal was justified in setting aside election‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, not warranted in circum stances. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1985. The petitioner was elected to the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala but upon a petition moved by respondent No.1, the election was set aside when the Election Tribunal found that Election Rules had been violated materially affecting the result. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Election Tribunal, dated 6‑3‑1985 by way of a writ petition.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to the poll at Polling Station No.97 which was reserved for female voters. More than 2,000 votes were attached with this polling station but actually less than a quarter were polled.
3. The Presiding Officer who was responsible for the election appeared as witness and stated that she had complied with the rules and had sealed the bags properly but on opening the sealed bags the Tribunal found that they were practically empty. Certain envelopes were found but without the contents. Since this belied the statement of the Presiding Officer, the learned Tribunal was justified in disbelieving her statement.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the election petition but this contention was not accepted by the Election Tribunal as he found no corroboration for the claim of the present petitioner. There is, therefore; no reason to dispute the findings of the Tribunal on this count either.
5. On examination of the election material the Tribunal found that the ballot‑papers shown to have been cast in favour of the erindidi were missing. So were the envelopes and other material referred to in E rule 42 of Election Rules, 1979. The list of the count was not signed by any of the candidates or their agents. It was, therefore, not case of the destruction of record but of preparation of fake record. The Tribunal was, thus, justified in setting aside the election.
6. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. A. A. Petition dismissed.