Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL WAHID VS Respondent: ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHAHonorable Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain
1986 S C M R 298
Present: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Zaffar Hussain Mirza and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ
ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 573 of 1984, decided on 31st October, 1984.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑4‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 1547 of 1984).
Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 24‑‑Misprint in electoral list‑‑Rectification of mistake being late, confusion prevailed during elections‑‑Order of Tribunal allowing election petition on ground of confusion that prevailed, upheld.
Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Dr. Danishwar Malik, Advocate Supreme ‑Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st October, 1984.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Abdul Wahid petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned . Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑4‑1984. in an election case.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Electoral Unit of Chak No. 23‑A/S.B. consists of 3 units, i.e. Units Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The petitioner alongwith respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and many other persons, filed his nomination papers for election from Electoral Unit No. 7, which were duly accepted by the Returning Officer and even a symbol was issued to him. It appears that there was a misprint in the electoral list inasmuch as Electoral Unit No. 7 was shown as Electoral Unit No. 8 in the index of the electoral list. The mistake was, however, rectified by an amendment, vide order, dated 13‑9‑1983, but the amendment was to late that utter confusion prevailed during the election. The same was, therefore, challenged through an election petition which was allowed.
Feeling aggrieved Abdul Wahid petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion reached by the High Court and as such do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed.
M. I. Leave refused.