Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WILAYAT KHAN VS Respondent: REHAM DAD And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s):Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi, Shafi-ur-
Rehman Title: WILAYAT KHAN vs REHAM DAD And Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1020 of 1984 Writ Petition No.4530 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1984-10-14 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 532 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN. J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dismissing his writ petition whereby he had challenged the order of the Election Tribunal, dated 22-10-1983. 2. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 contested the Local Council Election held on 28-9-1983 for a seat in Ward No.6, Union Council Karianwala, District Gujrat. As a result of the counting of the votes immediately after the election each of the candidates was found to have obtained 139 votes. Lots were consequently drawn and the petitioner was declared as successful. The respondent challenged his election through an election petition under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Before the Election Tribunal, respondent No.1 made a statement withdrawing all objections, except the objection relating to counting. Consequently the Election Tribunal recounted the votes and found that one of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner was invalid. Therefore, it declared Raham Dad respondent as having been elected from the constituency in question. 3.Feeling -aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. Before the High Court his contention was that the Election Tribunal had not strictly followed the procedure laid down by rule 8 of the Election Petition Rules, inasmuch as it had not framed any issue in respect of the question in dispute. But this contention did not find favour with the High Court and it dismissed his writ petition vide the impugned order. Hence the present petition.
---
## Page 2
4. The petitioner's counsel has urged the same contention before us. We are however, inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that in such matters strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by the C.P.C. Was not necessary and the Election Tribunal did what was essential to resolve the dispute relating to the alleged mistake in the counting of votes. We are of the view that substantial justice has been done in this case and we do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any force.