' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--The brief facts out of which the present intra-Court appeal arises are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No,4743 of 2004, wherein they challenged the vires of revised result dated 31-3-2004, seeking declaration that the revised consolidated statement dated 31-3-2004, issued by respondent No,6 in form XV to be void, illegal and is of no legal consequences having been prepared unauthorizedly on the basis of foreign information by ignoring real and lawful statement of counts furnished by the Presiding Officer in Form XIII and direction to Returning Officer/respondent No,6 to consolidate the result on the basis of the statement of counts which was prepared and furnished in form XIII on 28-3-2004 at the close of the poll by the Presiding Officer of Polling Station No,5 and further prayed by seeking declaration that respondents Nos.1 and 2 be declared as returned candidates as Nazim and Naib Nazim of the Union Council in question. The aforesaid writ petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 11-5-2004. Hence the present intra-Court appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that election schedule was issued by the competent authority vide Notification dated 31-1-2004 with the following programme:-- (1)
(2) Nomination papers shall be received On 3-3-2004 (Wednesday) to 4-3-2004 (Thursday).
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9) Polling day 28-3-2004 (Sunday)
(10) Declaration of results by the Returning Officer on 31-03-2004 (Wednesday).
' The appellants, respondents Nos.1 and 2, and respondents Nos.7 to 10 contested the elections for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim qua Union Council No,128 Faisal Town, Lahore, which was held on 28-3-2004 by respondents Nos.3 to 6 in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and Rules framed under section 151 of the Ordinance under the name and style of "Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2003". The appellants were declared returned candidates on 31-3-2004. The Notification of the appellants was also issued by the competent authority and appellants had also taken oath in accordance with law. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 without availing the proper remedy of election petition before the Election Tribunal filed writ petition, which was accepted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The Constitutional petition was not maintainable in presence of the alternative remedy available to respondents Nos.1 and 2 in view of rule 70 of aforesaid Rules. They further submit that election was declared by the Returning Officer in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and Rules framed thereunder in accordance with the form prescribed under the Rules whereas respondents Nos.1 and 2 have alleged in their Constitutional petition that Returning Officer has revised the result on the request of the Presiding Officer of Polling Station No,5 who has prepared the result of Polling Station No,5 on 28-3-2004 which was revised by the Returning Officer on 31-3-2004 without any justification and in fact respondents Nos.1 and 2 have attached the documents along with thier Constitutional petition which were not genuine documents and are not on the prescribed proformas. Learned counsel of the appellants further submit that it is the duty and obligation of Returning Officer to declare the result in terms of rule 40, on 31-3-2004 in terms of Notification dated 31-1-2004. Therefore, original order was, of Returning Officer dated 31-3-2004 and under the Rules no review, representation, appeal is prescribed under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, learned Single Judge erred in law to declare the respondents Nos.1 and 2 as returned candidates merely relying upon revised result declared by respondent No,6 on 31-3-2004. In fact result was not revised by the Returning Officer as is evident from the annexures attached by the appellants along with their written statement and documents attached by respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with Constitutional petition specially annexures E and F. They further submit that Annexure-A attached with the Constitutional petition is not a genuine document, therefore, learned Single Judge erred in law to accept the Constitutional petition which could not be decided without recording the evidence in case the pleas and documents of appellants and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be put in juxta position then case of the respondents would fall under the phrase "disputed questions of fact". They further submit that Intra-Court appeal is maintainable as respondents Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the vires of the declaration of result of election in question dated 31-3-2004. Therefore, objection raised by the learned counsel of respondents Nos.1 and 2 qua the maintainability of the IntraCourt appeal is not maintainable in view of provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and Election Rules framed thereunder read with provisions of section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The learned counsel of the appellants further submit that Intra-Court appeal is maintainable as the Returning Officer has vast powers to recount the ballot papers and statement of results submitted by the Presiding Officer to the Returning Officer by virtue of Rules 39 and 40 of the Election Rules 2003. The Intra-Court appeal is maintainable as no appeal, review or revision is available against the declaration of the result by the Returning Officers of the Election in question under the said rules which is a condition precedent in view of the proviso of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. In support of his contention, he relied upon Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 Supreme Court 344).
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that respondents Nos.1 to 5 filed Constitutional Petition No,4743 of 2004 on 1-4-2004, which was fixed before the learned Single Judge on 2-4-2004 and following order was passed in C.M. No,1 of 2004:-- "Subject to notice Notification of Union Nazim and Naib Union Nazim of Union Council No,128 Faisal Town Lahore, shall be issued which shall be subject to the result of this petition."
' On the basis of the aforesaid restraining order, he submits that respondents have no alternative remedy to file election petition under rule 70 of the aforesaid Election Rules. The Election Commission of Pakistan issued Notification to the extent of returned candidates of the appellants on 5-4-2004, which was subsequently superseded by Notification dated 15-5-2004 in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11-5-2004. He further urges that the respondents have not attached fictitious documents under the revised result along with the Constitutional petition as Annexure-F, as the respondents have secured certified copy of revised result from the office of the Returning Officer.
He further submits that Presiding Officer has submitted result to the Returning Officer on 29-3-2004 along with his affidavit. The Returning Officer has sent reference to the Provincial Election Commission, Punjab, Lahore on 30-3-2004. The appellants as well as the respondents have submitted applications before the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer decided all the three applications i.e, application filed by the Presiding Officer and applications filed by the appellants and respondents Nos.1 and 2, vide order dated 30-3-2004. The result was revised by the Returning Officer on the basis of the order dated 30-3-2004. He further urges that the Returning Officer has no powers under the law to revise the result sent by him to the Election Commission under the provisions of Election Laws in question, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified to interfere in the matter and alternately he submits that in case the Returning Officer has the powers under the law to revise the result then I.C.A. Is not maintainable in view of proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, therefore, the Intra-Court appeal is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344; Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Central-I Lahore PLD 1985 SC 107; 1999 SCMR 1351 (No judgment) and Nawaz-ul-Haq Chowhan v. The State and others 2003 SCMR 1597. It was next argued that in case the Returning Officer has a power to review the result under the provisions of the law then Intra-Court appeal is -not maintainable and in case of Returning Officer has no authority to review his order under the provisions of the law then the judgment dated 11-5-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge is based on well reasoning and is sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Muhammad Akbar v. Dr. Khan Sahib Chief Minister of West Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P.) Karachi 387.
' Munir Ahmad v. Returning Officer, Karachi and others PLD 1966 Karachi 1.
' Begum Talat Jan and another v. Presiding Officer, etc. 1988 CLC 819.
' He further urges that the Presiding Officer and the Returning Officer have become functus officio after the preparation of the result by the Presiding Officer and after declaration of the result by the Returning Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon Muhammad Afzal v. District Judge/District Returning Officer, Sargodha and 3 others 2002 CLC 310. The learned Single Judge accepted the Constitutional petition vide impugned judgment dated 11-5-2004. The competent authority issued the notification of the respondent as returned candidate on 15-5-2004 and the respondent has taken oath on 17-5-2004. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17-5- 2004, passed in C. M. No,1 of 2004, suspended the notification and judgment of the learned Single Judge in the following terms:-- "Notice. Since the main appeal stands admitted to regular hearing and for the reasons given in the admitting note, the appellants have a prima facie case, we are inclined to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment and of any notification issued pursuant thereto."
' He further submits that the Returning Officer revised the result of the election on 31-3-2004 without having any power under the law, therefore, revised order of the Returning Officer dated 31-3-2004 is without lawful authority and the learned Single Judge was justified to accept the Constitutional petition through impugned judgment dated 11-5-2004 with cogent reasons, as is evident from findings of the learned Single Judge in paras.7, 8, 9 and 10. He further urges that there is no disputed question of fact before the learned Single Judge as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant and noted by the Division Bench of this Court in the admission order dated 17-5-2004. He further submits that there is difference qua the disputed questions of facts and question of facts.
There was no disputed question of fact before the learned Single Judge on the basis of the record which was before the learned Single Judge in the shape of documents, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified to interfere in the matter. In support of his contentions he relied upon Malik Muhammad Hasan v. Assistant Commissioner Quetta Sub-Division and 3 others 1987 CLC 182.
He further urges that the Returning Officer has acceded his jurisdiction to revise the result in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rules and Regulations, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified to interfere in the matter and to correct the error committed by the public functionaries. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following authorities:--
(1) Begum Talat Jan and another v. Presiding Officer, etc. 1988 CLC 819.
(2) Ch. Abdul Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner and others 1985 SCMR 359.
(3) Muhammad Akbar v. Dr. Khan Sahib, Chief Minister of West Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P.) Karachi 387.
(4) Munir Ahmad v. Returning Officer, Karachi and others PLD 1966 (W.P.) Karachi 1.
(5) Ahmad Saeed Kirmani v. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema, P.C.S. And another PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 88.
' The sole controversy before the learned Single Judge was whether the Returning Officer has the power to revise the result or not under the provision of Election Laws, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified to decide the Constitutional petition on the basis of the record available before the learned Single Judge, which is based purely on the interpretation of law and rules. He further urges that the learned Single Judge observed in para.4 in the following terms:-- "Since respondent No,4 issued two consolidated statements, one on 28-3-2004, declaring the petitioner as returning candidate and the other on 31-3-2004, showing respondents Nos.5 and 6 as successful candidates, he was required to appear before this Court in order to verify whether both the statements were prepared by him and if so what coerced him to prepare the second consolidated statement. Respondent No,4 appeared and admitted that both the statements were prepared and issued by him."
' He further urges that the respondents admitted this fact in the written statement filed by them before the learned Single Judge. In reply to the legal points in para.1(i), 1 (ii), therefore, the appellants cannot wriggle out from their admission on the well known principle of estopple and waiver. He further urges that photocopy of the original record placed on record by the Returning Officer, under the directions of this Court which was highlighted by him in his own way.
4. Learned counsel of the appellants in rebuttal submit that Annexure-E attached with the Constitutional petition as Annexure-A is on the proper Form which is inconsonance with the provision of Election Rules. They further submit that AnnexureE/1 also appears to be forged one in view of the entries in Column No,V and Column Nos.l-3 and in Column Nos.7 to 9, as all the entries are not consonance with each other. Next argued that the Returning Officer after providing proper hearing to all the concerned passed the order dated 30-3-2004 on the applications of the parties in accordance with law and thereafter declared the result on 31-3-2004, as attached by the respondents with the Constitutional petition as Annexure-E. Therefore, the Returning Officer has not revised any earlier order, therefore, the Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable. He summed up his arguments that the Constitutional petition was not maintainable before the Single Judge after the announcement of the result of the election through Gazette Notification dated 12-4-2004. In support of his contention he relied upon Asghar Ali v. Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, Lahore and 4 others 1999 SCMR 1123.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there are certain forms prescribed under the Rules, i.e, Forms XIII, XV, XVI, whereas forms in the shape of appendix are prescribed by the competent authority in the instructions issued by the competent authority to the Presiding Officers.
The respondents relied upon the document, which is Appendix B at page 49 and is prescribed at page 29 of the Guide Lines for District Returning Officer, Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officers, by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Form XIII, under rule 39(9) Statement of Count is prescribed at page 29 qua the Guide Lines issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan to the Presiding Officers, Assistant Presiding Officers and Polling Officers. He further submits that the Presiding Officer has sent the result. On Form XIII, which is at page 29, according to which the respondents secured 120 votes whereas Appendix-B reveals that the respondents secured 469 votes. He further urges that that Appendix B is not a genuine document. He further submits that the Returning Officer has the powers to revise the result in view of section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
In support of his contentions he relied upon the following judgments:--
(1) The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalal- udDin PLD 1992 SC 207 = 1989 SCMR 441.
(2) PLD 1990 SC 1077 (No judgment). Muhammad Kazim Khan, Advocate, submits in rebuttal that the prayer clause of the Constitutional petition read with para. 1 of the impugned judgment clearly show that both are contradicting each other.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order on the basis of the paper book supplied by the Returning Officer and the relevant provisions of the Rules.
7. The election was held on 28-3-2004. Presiding Officer of Polling Station No,5 sent result to the Returning Officer on 28-32004, in Form XIII, under the heading "Statement of Account, which is at page 29 of the paper book, which reveals that the respondents secured 120 votes whereas Dr. Amjad Mustafa secured 64 votes. The Presiding Officer also sent communication of result to the Returning Officer on Appendix-B, which is at page 27, which reveals that the respondents secured 469 votes and the appellants secured 64 votes. Presiding Officer submitted application before the Returning Officer .After affixing court-fee on 29-3-2004 along with affidavit with the prayer to record his statement as the result has been changed under duress. The Returning Officer passed order on 29-3-2004 and his statement was recorded on the same day which is at page 23 and the affidavit is at page 25. Appellants also submitted application before the District Returning Officer on 28-3-2004 and the court-fee affixed on the application reveals dated 29-3-2004. The District Returning Officer passed the following order: "It be looked into on 31-3-2004 i.e, date fixed for official counting"
' Returning Officer also passed order on the same application on 31-3-2004, in the following terms:- " Returning Officer to take action in accordance with law"
' The following order was also passed on 1-4-2004 by the Returning Officer:-- "Received on 1-4-2004 at 8-45 a.m. Result has already been consolidated."
' Saeed-ul-Hassan Jaffari, Advocate, also submitted application with regard to the change of result under duress with the connivance of the Presiding Officer before the Returning Officer on 29-3- 2004, which is at page 31. Respondents also submitted. Application before the Returning Officer with the prayer that the statement of count having been submitted by all the Presiding Officers on 28th of March, 2004, may be consolidated in terms of the rule 40 of the Election Rules and simultaneously it may be conveyed to the Election Commission in terms of rule 42 thereof, so that the Gazette Notification may be made. The Returning Officer accepted the application of the appellant and .Has given findings that the respondents secured 120 votes instead of 469 votes at Polling Station No,5, which are at page 34. The Returning Officer also sent reference to the Provincial Election Commission through the District Returning Officer on 30-3-2004, which is at page 39 of the paper book with the prayer to advise in the light of the aforesaid circumstances. The Returning Officer passed the following order on 31-3-2004:-- "Result has been consolidated and dispatched to the Election Commission."
' Presiding Officer filled two Forms XV containing consolidated Statement of the results of the Count furnished by the Presiding Officers, which are at pages 3 to 7 and 9 to 13 respectively. Appendix A under the Heading Communication of result contained the order that Muhammad Fayyaz and Ijaz Mahmood Maharvi secured 1945 votes which is at page 2. Form XV at pages 3 to 7 contained cuttings and notes of the Returning Officer which was not signed by the Returning Officer whereas Form XV at pages 9 to 13 is signed by the Returning Officer, according to which appellant Dr. Amjad Mustafa secured 1943 votes, Muhammad Fayyaz, respondent secured 1596 votes. Form XVI at page 9 also reveals that the appellants were declared as Returning Candidates as is evident from entries Nos.1 and 2 at page 16, whereas revised result under the heading communication of results contained the names of Dr. Amjad Mustafa and Syed-ulHassan Jafri dated 31-3-2004. The Returning Officer also issued corrigendum dated 31-3-2004, which is at page 19. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant entries of Appendix B under the heading Communication of Results by ' Presiding Officers on telephone/wireless/ telefax and relevant entries of Form XIII under the heading statement of count, which are at pages 27 and 29:-- Page 27 (Appendix-B)
(5) Total Votes Cast Male 660 Female---Total--
(6) No, of valid votes including Challenged valid votes cast in favour of {{TABLE}} of No, of valid votes
(1) Raffat Ullah 136 Khan M. Fayyaz 469 Amjad Mustafa 64 Total 669 No, of votes 669 excluded from the count
(9) Total No of 353 votes polled (total of items Nos.7 and 8)
Page 29 (Statement of count).
(1) 'Raffat Ullah Basket 136 Khan
(2) Muhammad Crescent 120 Fayyaz
(3) Amjad Hockey 64 Mustafa ' Rule 39 sub-Rules (1), (2), (9) and (15) reads as under:-- "39. Proceedings at the close of the poll:---
(1) The Presiding Officer shall count the votes immediately after the close of the poll, in the presence of such of the contesting candidates, election agents and polling agents as may be present.
(2) The Presiding Officer shall give such of the contesting candidates, election agents and polling agents as may be present, reasonable facility of observing the count and give them such information with respect thereto as can be given consistent with the orderly conduct of the count and the discharge of his duties in connection therewith.
(9) The Presiding Officer shall, immediately after the count, prepare a statement of the count in Form XIII showing therein the number of valid votes polled by each contesting candidate and the ballot papers excluded from the count.
(15) After the close of the proceedings under the foregoing sub rules, the Presiding Officer, shall, in compliance with such instructions as may be given by the Returning Officer in this behalf, cause the packets, the statement of the count and the ballot paper account prepared by him to be sent to the Returning Officer together with such other records as the Returning Officer may direct.
' Rule 40 sub-Rules (1), (2) and (6) reads as under:--
40. Consolidation of results:
(1) The Returning Officer shall consolidate in Form XV the' results of the counts furnished by the Presiding Officer.
(2) The Returning Officer shall give the contesting candidates and their election agent a notice in writing of the day, time and place for the consolidation of the results.
(6) The Returning Officer shall not recount the valid ballot papers in respect of any polling station unless:--
(i) The count by the Presiding Officer is challenged in writing by a contesting candidate or his election agent and the Returning Officer is satisfied about the reasonableness of the challenge; or
(ii) he is directed to do so by the Chief Election Commission or the District Returning Officer; ' Rule 42 Sub-Rules (1), (3), (4) and (5) read as under:--
42. Declaration of results:---
(1) Save as provided in sub-rule (4) of rule 39 the Returning Officer shall, after consolidation of result under rule 40, or after the drawl of the lot under rule 41, declare by public notice the names of such contesting candidate, or candidates in case of multi-member wards as have or are deemed to have received the highest number of votes.
(3) The Returning Officer shall, immediately after publication of the notice under sub-rule (1), submit to the District Returning Officer, a return of the election in-Form XVI together with a copy of the consolidated statement.
' In case of elections of Nazim and Naib Nazim if the joint candidates of a Zila Council securing highest votes failed to secure the majority of the total votes of the members of Union Council in the District the names of the joint candidates securing the highest and the second highest votes shall be sent to the Chief Election Commissioner, immediately after the consolidation of results in Form XVI.
' The District Returning Officer shall arrange to have names of the returned candidates of an electoral ward in a council published in the official Gazette.
10. We would firstly like to decide preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the ICA in view of proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. Respondents have basically challenged the vires of the result prepared by the Presiding Officer on 28-3-2004, which was subsequently changed by the Returning Officer vide order dated 30-3-2004, and also changed the declaration of result prepared by the Returning Officer on the basis of the results submitted by the Presiding Officers on 29-3-2004, which was revised on 31-3-2004. The Returning Officer is duty bound to consolidate the results of all the polling stations in view of rule 39(9), therefore, there is no appeal, revision or review of the Returning Officer under the provisions of the Election Rules in question. It is settled rule of interpretation of statute that every provision, which has the effect of taking away the right of appeal is to be construed strictly and in case there is any doubt as to the availability of right of appeal that doubt be resolved in favour of the existence of right of appeal. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgments:--
(1) Shafique Ahmad Butt v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1983 CLC 1352.
(2) University of the Punjab and 2 others v. Rehmatullah PLD 1982 Lahore 729.
(3) Mumtaz Khan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another PLD 1966 SC 276.
(4) Syed Arif Raza Rizvi v. Messrs Pakistan International Airlines through Chairman/M.D. Karachi PLD 2001 SC 182.
(5) Messrs Modern Continental Business (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad 4nd another 2002 CLC 233.
' It is pertinent to mention here that the Honourable Supreme Court has considered the basic case Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344 in Syed Arif Raza Rizvi's case, supra and held in that case that the I.C.A. Is maintainable.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, the preliminary objection has no force.
It is pertinent to mention here that the basic documents relied upon by the respondents wherein the respondents secured 469 votes and the appellants Amjad Mustafa secured 64 votes is not on a proper Form XIII in terms of the Election Rules mentioned above coupled with the fact that the respondents relied upon the communication of results by the Presiding Officer to the Returning Officer on Form Appendix-B, which contain the following entries:-- {{TABLE}}
(5) Total Votes cast male 660 female-- Total--
(6) No of valid votes including Challenged valid votes cast in favour of Name of No of candidate valid votes Raffat Ullah 136 Khan M. Fayyaz 469 Amjad Mustafa 64 Total 669 No, of votes 669 excluded from the count Total No, of 353 votes polled (total of items Nos.7 and 8)
' In case this document is read as a whole then it requires to decide the controversy between the parties after recording the evidence, which is not permissible in the eye of law in Constitutional proceedings, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified to resolve the disputed questions of facts while exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction.
12. In case all the documents are put in juxta position then it brings the case of the respondents in the area of disputed questions of facts. This Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed questions of facts while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P., through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture Peshawar and others 1993 SCMR 618.
13. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case we have asked the counsel for the parties qua recounting of the votes with regard to Polling Station No,5 in question, which was not accepted by the counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2. As mentioned above, the circumstances of the case in hand are of such a nature that it was appropriate for the Returning Officer to recount ballot papers of the polling station in question in presence of the parties. The Returning Officer has not adopted this method to resolve the controversy, which tantamounts refusal to exercise statutory power. We are of the view that it is in the interest of both the parties to resolve the controversy in the interest of justice and fair play to direct the Returning Officer to recount votes in presence of the parties and thereafter law will take its own course on account of the result of the recounting, therefore, we direct the Returning Officer to recount the votes of Polling Station No,5 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the judgment after notice to the parties and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with. Law.
'It is also admitted fact that the respondents have filed Constitutional petition when the result in question was not declared in official Gazette, thus, the Constitutional petition was the only remedy available to the respondents, therefore, the objection of the appellants qua the maintainability of the Constitutional petition in presence of alternative remedy of election petition has no force.
14. In view of what has been discussed above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is, set aside and the Intra-Court Appeal is disposed of in terms of preceding paragraphs. It is pertinent to mention here that some of the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the parties have no relevancy to resolve the issue in question in view of the aforesaid discussion, Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Returning Officer concerned immediately.
' Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges to the parties.