1990 SCMR 213 (PLP)

Abdul Aziz Qureshi and Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M. Aslam Naqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent‑No.l. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to

4. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989. JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 22 January 1989 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner and respondent No.l contested election for membership of Municipal Committee Kasur from Electoral Unit No.28 held on 30th November 1987. The petitioner was declared elected. Thereupon respondent No.l challenged his election by way of election petition alleging that the Presiding Officer had illegally rejected his valid votes and wrongly accepted invalid votes of the petitioner. In the course of the hearing recounting of votes was sought. However, the Election Tribunal dismissed the petition whereupon respondent No.l challenged his order before the Lahore High Court. By way of writ petition and the case was remanded to the Election Tribunal with the direction to recount the votes and then to decide the case on the basis of the result of his count. When the matter was reheard the petitioner filed different applications one after the other stating that the election record had been tampered with and that therefore the election material be opened in the presence of the Presiding Officer. He also filed an application requesting that the record of double lock of the male polling booth be summoned. He likewise alleged that the seals on the bags containing the election material were broken. The Election Tribunal dismissed all these applications as they were not supported by any evidence. Then it undertook to recount the votes and as a result respondent No.l was declared successful as he was found to have obtained 27 votes more than the petitioner. This order of the Election Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court by way of writ petition. The High Court summoned the election record. Sealed bags containing the election material were opened and the ballot papers were examined. After examining the entire record and also considering the allegations of the petitioner the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the election record had not been tampered with. According to the inquiry of the High Court the Secretary Union Council had produced the record before the Election Tribunal who took the record from the office of the District Accounts Officer in the presence of both the parties. Eventually it was on this finding of fact that the learned Division Bench held that the order of the Election Tribunal did not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that the applications of the petitioner had been arbitrarily dismissed and that the Election Tribunal should have held inquiry. But in the instant case the High Court itself held the inquiry and arrived at the conclusion that the order passed by the Election Tribunal was unexceptionable. There is therefore no ground made out for interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./S‑442/S Petition dismissed.