Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ VS Respondent: AURAMNG ZERIL
1988 M L D 1823
1988 M L D 1823
[Lahore]
Before Abdul Shakurul Salam, J
Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑‑Petitioner
versus
AURAMNG ZERIL‑‑Respondent
Writ Petition No. 440 of 1983, decided on 10th January, 1984.
(a) Punjab Election Petitions Rules, 1979‑‑--
-‑‑‑R. 34‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979;, S. 25‑‑Election‑ Votes‑‑Omission by Presiding Officer to put down voters' number on counterfoils of ballot papers, held, could not result in disfranchising voters nor unseating successful candidates‑‑Non‑compliance of provisions of R. 34(1) mere irregularity not affecting result of election.
Ghulam Ghous v. Muhammad Rafiq etc. P L D 1982 Kar. 872 and 1984 C L C 1544 rel.
P L D 1983 Lah. 76 ref.
(b) Punjab election petition rules 1979--------
---------R 34-------- Punjab local government ordinance (vi of 1979) S 25-Election oath person notified as an elected member or appointed to an office held does not become fulfledged holder of office if an oath prescribed had not been taken by him
(c) Punjab Election petitions rules 1979----
----------Rr. 24 & 25 polling agent appointment qualification appointment of a lady teacher in government high school as polling agent rules not requiring tdhat a person appointed should be qualified to be elected as a member no exception held could be taken to such appointment as polling agent
ORDER
The petitioner contested election to Ward '''to. 15 o Municipal Committee Khushab and lost by 58 votes to respondent No. 1. He filed an election petition. It was tried on the following issue:‑‑
(1) Whether the election of respondent as a local councillor from electoral area No. 15 of Municipal Committee, Khushab is void for rigging the election and resorting to illegal and corrupt practices by the respondent?
The learned Election Tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties and appraising the same came to the conclusion that the issue was not proved and dismissed the petition, vide orders of 31‑1‑1983. Hence, this Constitutional petition. . 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since voters' number was not put down on the counterfoils of the ballot papers which is contrary to the provisions of clause (e) of sub‑rule (1) of rule 34 of the Election Petition Rules, 1979, the election was required to be declared void. He has secondly contended that one Mst. Zahida Parveen was appointed as the polling agent of the respondent and she being a teacher in a Government High School, the election has been materially avoided.
3. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the fact that the Presiding Officer did not enter the number of voters on the counterfoils would not result in disfranchising the voters nor unseating the successful candidate. For an act of one thousand others cannot be punished nor deprived of their rights. The non‑compliance was a mere irregularity not affecting tae result of the election. The reliance of the learned Election Tribunal on P L D 19832 Kar. 872 Ghulam Ghous v. Muhammad Rafiq etc. a very learned judgment of the High Court Division Bench, if we may say so with respect, was very appropriate. We had also come to the same conclusion ;n 1984 C L C 1544 Mian Ziauddin v. Punjab Local Government etc. decided on 16‑4‑1984. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on P L D 1983 Lah. 76 is not quite apt. In this case the person who was notified but had not taken oath as a member, proposed another when only a full-fledged member could do so and for this reason the election of the proposed candidate was set aside. The person who is notified R as an elected member or appointed to an office does not become full-fledged holder of the office if an oath prescribed has not been taken. The learned counsel was pointed out that if an Advocate is appointed as a Judge of the High Court by the' President unless he takes oath of his office he cannot start delivering judgment. Therefore, the reliance on the last quoted judgment was not quite to the point.
4. As regards the second contention, he candidly pointed out that Polling Agents are appointed odder Rule 25 of the Election Petition Rules, 1979 where under there is no requirement that the appointee should be qualified to be elected as a member, as an Election Agent has to be under Rule 24 of the Aforesaid Rules. Therefore, no exception can he taken to the appointment of Mst. Zahida Parveen as a Polling Agent.
5. On facts the learned Election Tribunal has found on the sole issue that no illegal or corrupt practice had taken place.
6. In view of the above there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
M.Y.H./3295/L Petition dismissed.