2026 PLP 590 (CLC)

SARDAR AHMAD HALEEMI, J.

The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution") with the following relief: "a. Declare the notification declaring Respondent No.5 as the sole Chairman of the District Council, Musakhel, full-time, as illegal and void; b. Direct the respondents to implement Notification No.5-1/2018 (BLCEC)/3649-60 dated 21-02-2018 in its true letter and spirit, by declaring both as returned candidates, each entitled to serve half the term; c. Order the Respondents No.1 to issue notification of Petitioner as a District Chairman District Council Musakhel from 12th July 2025 for next two years, and notify this result in the Official Gazette as required by law. d. Restrain Respondent No.5 from acting as Chairman until the final disposal of this petition. e. With any other relief deemed just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and respondent No.5 secured equal votes in the election for the position of Chairman, District Council Musakhel and pursuant to Notification No.5-1/2018 (BLCEC)/3649-60, both candidates with equal votes are to be declared returned and each is entitled to serve half the term, with the order of service determined by draw of lots, however, respondent No.4 (Returning Officer) violated this mandatory provision and instead declared respondent No.5 as the sole winner, thereby depriving the petitioner of his lawful right to serve; that the Election Commission (Respondents Nos.1 and 2) failed to rectify the illegality and asked the petitioner to approach the court; that draw of lots, though conducted, was only to decide the order of service, not to eliminate the petitioner's claim altogether; that the act of denying half term to the petitioner violates Articles 25, 140-A and 219(d) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General and learned D.A.G. assisted by the learned Law Officer Provincial Election Commissioner, Quetta contended that the local government elections for the office of Chairman, District Council Musakhel, were conducted in full compliance with the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013, which govern the entire electoral process; that upon a tie in votes between the petitioner and respondent No.5, the Returning Officer (Respondent No.4) lawfully conducted a draw of lots in accordance with Rule 63 of the said Rules; that the candidate whose name was drawn, Respondent No.5, was rightly declared the Chairman for the full term, as provided under the Rules; that the Notification No.5-1/2018 (BLCEC)/3649-60 cited by the petitioner cannot override or supersede the statutory Rules, which explicitly require a draw of lots to determine the sole winner; that the petitioner failed to challenge the election result at the appropriate forum within the prescribed time, and thus the election result has attained finality; that the Provincial Government and the Returning Officer have acted within their lawful authority and in accordance with the Constitution; that Election Commission supervised the local government elections in accordance with Articles 140-A and 219(d) of the Constitution and the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013; that in case of tied votes, the Election Rules mandate a draw of lots by the Returning Officer in the presence of candidates to decide the winner; that the Returning Officer conducted the draw transparently and declared Respondent No.5 the winner for the full term; that the Election Commission has no authority to alter or disregard the provisions of the Local Government Rules or the outcome of the draw; that the petitioner's claim for sharing the term is not supported by any statutory provision recognized by the Election Commission; that the petition lacks legal basis and should be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contended that the election was conducted fairly, and the Returning Officer followed the statutory procedure of drawing lots in case of a tie; that the draw of lots is a recognized and legally binding mechanism for resolving electoral ties under the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013; that the respondent No.5's declaration as Chairman for the full term is lawful, valid, and in accordance with the Rules; that the notification relied upon by the petitioner is not part of the statutory framework and does not override the election Rules; that the petitioner has no right to claim half the term after the draw of lots and declaration of the winner; that the petition is frivolous and should be dismissed with costs.

5. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that the petitioner contested the local government election for the position of Chairman, District Council Musakhel, Balochistan held under the supervision of Respondent No.4 and in accordance with the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013 ("BLG(Election) Rules, 2013"). After the completion of vote counting process, the petitioner and respondent No.5 had secured equal number of votes, as such, the Presiding Officer draw the lot between the parties and respondent No.5 was declared winner. Consequently, respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 12.07.2023 of respondent No.5 as Chairman of the District Council Musakhel. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, in the event of a tie in votes, each successful candidate will serve a half-term. Since respondent No.5 has completed his half term, the petitioner requests to be declared Chairman of the District Council Musakhel for the remaining half terms. To resolve this pivotal issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 63(7) of BLG(Election) Rules, 2013, which reads as follows: "

63. Poll.- [(1) If there are more candidates than one, the Presiding Officer shall cause a poll for election of Chairman or Vice Chairman as the case may be: Provided that at simple majority of the members elected for the Local Council concerned are present and voting at the meeting]; (7) The candidate obtaining the highest number of votes shall be declared by the Presiding Officer to have been elected as Chairman or Vice Chairman, as the case may be, {in Form XXIV(B)] and if for the purposes of declaration of result there is a tie between two or more candidates who have obtained an equal number of votes, the result shall be declared by the Presiding Officer by drawing lot." Likewise, respondent No.2, before the commencement of the Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of District councils, elaborated on the procedure and terms of the Chairman and Vice Chairman through public notices throughout Balochistan and affixed them in all District councils. The relevant part is reproduced as under:

6. The aforementioned Rule 63(7) of BLG(Election) Rules, 2013, demonstrates that in case of equal votes between the contested candidates for the Chairman of the District Council, the Returning Officer shall conduct a draw of lots in the presence of witnesses. The Returning Officer is further required to record the procedure in the election register, obtaining the signatures or thumb impressions of the candidates as proof that the draw was conducted transparently and in their presence. Consequently, the winning candidate shall be elected for the full term. As per record, respondent No.2 conducted the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the District Council Musakhel and respondent No.5 was declared Chairman of the District Council Musakhel vide notification dated 12.07.2023 for the complete tenure in terms of Rule 63(7) of BLG(Election) Rules, 2013. However, the petitioner's claim for declaring him for the remaining half term is not supported by the rules and law, as it lacks any legal foundation. The official respondents conducted the process of the Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of District Musakhel lawfully by following the BLG(Election) Rules, 2013. No infirmity or perversity has been found in the election process, warranting interference in this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. For the above reasons, Constitution Petition No. 40 of 2025, being bereft of merit is dismissed. UN/160/Bal Petition dismissed.