1989SCMR1108 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL (LOCAL COUNCILS), PESHAWAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1108 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL (LOCAL COUNCILS), PESHAWAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1108 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1108 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1108 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL (LOCAL COUNCILS), PESHAWAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Yunis Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mian Shaktrullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Qazi M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23rd January, 1989 of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No.401 of 1988). North‑West Frontier Province Local Council (Election Petition) Rules, 1979‑‑ ‑‑‑R.32‑‑Election‑‑Local Council‑‑Plea on which Election Tribunal allowed election petition was not taken in the pleadings‑‑No evidence was available either to support the plea that three minors had voted or that two of them had voted m favour of the respondent‑‑High Court thus was right in interfering with order of Election Tribunal whereby it had set aside the election on such plea. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a Local Council Election matter, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' constitutional petition. The petitioner obtained 195 votes while the contesting respondent No.2 had 196 votes. On election petition a learned Tribunal set aside respondent's election and declared the petitioner as elected. According to learned counsel three voters, namely, Izharullah, Naveed and Rehman Ullah, who were minors, did cast their votes and two out of them; namely, Izharullah and Naveed voted for the said respondent. Accordingly it was found in petitioner's favour by the Election Tribunal that the respondent's votes having been reduced to 194 the petitioner had gained the majority by obtaining 195 votes. In the impugned judgment the main consideration which weighed with the High Court was that the plea on which the Election Tribunal allowed the petitioner's election petition, was not taken in his pleadings. And further that it was a case of no evidence either to support the plea that the three minors voted or that two of them voted in favour of the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel we are unable to differ with the High Court in all the abovenoted points. In so far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned two of the observations need particular notice. They are "Even it was not proved that the three voters, stated to be minors, did poll their votes what to say of these being polled in favour of the respondent".‑‑‑
‑‑‑"It is astonishing wherefrom the learned Tribunal gathered that the three minors cast their votes in favour of the respondent". We heard the learned counsel at considerable length with regard to the aforequoted findings. In our view, in the facts and circumstances, they were so rendered because practically there was no evidence with the Election Tribunal to hold; either that the three voters in dispute did cast their votes or that any one of them voted for a particular candidate. That being so it was a case of no evidence. The High Court rightly interfered in its constitutional jurisdiction. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.BA./M‑806/S. Leave refused.