1990 PLP 547 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARIF CHAUDHARY‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 547 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF CHAUDHARY‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 547 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 547 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 547 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARIF CHAUDHARY‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and lmtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1989.
- 4. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the recounting had been passed leaving no scope for subsequently limiting it or making it conditional or partial. On merits it is also contended that it was a case of total recount, if at all recounting had to take place.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5‑11‑1988 passed in Writ Petition No.3888 of 1988). ‑‑‑Rr. 11 & 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Order for recounting of votes from electoral unit was passed during hearing of election petition‑‑‑Such total recount of votes was objected to by respondent on ground that his valid ballot papers could not be inspected during recounting because the other party had neither taken such plea in his written statement nor he had claimed recrimination‑‑‑Objection was accepted by the Election Tribunal which was upheld by High Court in Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner contended that order of recounting had been passed leaving no scope for subsequently limiting it or making it conditional or partial and that it was a case of total recount‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in pleading the correctness of the count, the petitioner could not have possibly also pleaded incorrectness of the count and the two pleas would have been mutually destructive, inconsistent and untenable and that explained the absence of a ground in the form of recrimination to that effect.
Judgment & Decree
I hereby accept the applications and pass an order for recounting of votes from Electoral Unit No. 26 of Municipal Committee, Okara. Complete record including Election bags be summoned for 4‑6‑1988. The parties are directed to appear personally before this Court on the next date of hearing."
3. When the recount in compliance with this Order was taking place, the respondent No.3 submitted an application objecting to total recount by reciting as hereunder:‑ "That the valid ballot papers of the petitioner cannot be inspected during re‑counting because neither the respondent No.1 has taken this plea in his written statement nor he claimed recrimination. Reliance is placed on:‑ P L D 1975 J (sic) p. 41 and A I R 1964 (sic) p. 1200. So it will be useless to open the envelope containing the ballot papers of the petitioners. So it is respectfully prayed that the ballot papers of the petitioner should kindly not be inspected:" This was contested. The learned Additional District Judge passed an order to the following effect on 10‑7‑1988:‑‑ "The upshot of the above discussion is that the application filed by the applicant is accepted. Ballot paper of Rao Talib Ali will not be inspected. To come up on 17‑7‑1988 for remaining recounting of valid votes of Ch. Muhammad Arif respondent and also of invalid votes." The Constitution Petition against this order was dismissed. Hence this petition.
4. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the recounting had been passed leaving no scope for subsequently limiting it or making it conditional or partial. On merits it is also contended that it was a case of total recount, if at all recounting had to take place.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand relied heavily on the pleadings to show that no recrimination application had been filed and no such ground taken which may justify the recounting of the votes obtained by the respondent.
6. In pleading the correctness of the count, the petitioner could not have possibly also pleaded incorrectness of the count. The two pleas would have been mutually destructive, inconsistent and untenable. That explains the absence of a ground in the form of recrimination to that effect.
7. In order to examine full implications of it, leave to appeal is granted. The matter be heard at an early date on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents. Security in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The interim order made on 5‑1‑1989 to continue. M.A.K./M‑993/S Leave granted.