1989SCMR602 (PLP)
GUL SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR602 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GUL SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR602 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR602 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR602 (PLP) (GUL SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in this local council Election matter against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's writ petition. Petitioner was elected to a local council with 220 votes. His rival candidate had also polled 220 votes and the petitioner won through the draw of lots. His election having been challenged, the Election Tribunal on re‑count determined petitioner's votes at 218, while the contestant's votes were counted as 219 and thus the latter was declared elected. The petitioner's writ petition having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has reiterated all the arguments advanced in the High Court, but failed to meet the observations in the impugned judgment in reply to those contentions. However, he has raised an additional argument that at least one vote marked as "R" has been wrongly excluded from his count on the mere ground that the mark affixed on it was not clear. The argument is that the placing of the mark was not wrong and no rule had been contravened. A perusal of the observation in this behalf made by the Election Tribunal shows that it was not established by visual examination that the required mark had itself been affixed. The words used are vote R per mohar wazeh nahien hai This in the context clearly meant that the marking itself was doubtful. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of (cave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused. AA./G‑155/S Leave to appeal refused.