' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J . --- The petitioners on the one hand, respondents Nos.3 and 4 on the 2nd and respondents Nos.5 and 6 on the 3rd contested elections to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in U.C. No.19, Tehsil Karor, District Layyah. Upon the close of polls, the results were ascertained at the various Polling Stations and were consolidated by the Returning Officer in Form-XVI (Annex 'B').
According to this document, the petitioners had polled 3629 votes, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 bagged 3525 while the tally of respondents Nos.5 and 6 was 1122 votes. The learned D.R.O., Layyah, however, proceeded to cancel the election of Nazim and Naib Nazim of the said U.C. Vide order dated 20-8-2005 (Annex 'C').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned D.R.O. Has acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned order. According to him, there is no statutory provision authorizing the D.R.O. To cancel the entire election. Learned counsel further contends that even a re-poll can be ordered only if the result at a Polling Station cannot be ascertained whereas the admitted position is that the result was so ascertained on all the Polling Stations. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4, on the other hand, has tried to argue that the impugned order is valid and lawful.
3. I have examined the impugned order passed by the learned D.R.O., Layyah. He has stated that on the polling day, the petitioners entered Polling Station No.4 and forcibly took away a ballot paper book containing 100 ballot papers and the Presiding Officer got registered a case F.I.R. No.162 under section 382, P.P.C. And sections 167/171 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 as also section 16 MPO at Police Station, Karor, District Layyah. On the same day, the petitioners entered Polling Station No.7 and resorted to indiscriminate firing whereupon the Presiding Officer got registered a case F.I.R. No.197 at Police Station, Fatehpur, District Layyah. Copies of both these F.I.Rs.
Are respectively Annexes 'D' and 'E'.
4. The learned D.R.O. Then mentioned that the Returning Officer has submitted a return of election in Form-XVI together with a copy of the consolidated statement in terms of rule 38(3) of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005, with a note that Niaz Ahmad Gujjar petitioner has disturbed the polling process and has interfered with the performance of the duty of the polling staff on the polling day at Polling Station Nos.4 and 7. He has then proceeded to cancel the elections of Nazim and Naib Nazim.
5. Now the said impugneg order itself shows that the Returning Officer had consolidated the results in terms of Rule 36 of the said Rules and in terms of rule 38(3) submitted the return of election in Form-XVI to the learned D.R.O. Now under rule 38(4), the D.R.O. Was bound to forward the names of the returned candidates to the Provincial Election Commissioner for publication in the official Gazette by the Chief Election Commissioner. I have not been able to find any provision in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 or the said Elections Rules,,, 2005 warranting the impugned order that has been passed by the learned D.R.O. And so is the case with the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. I may note here that under rule 25(2), a D.R.O. Has been authorized rather mandated to direct a fresh poll at a Polling Station where the poll has been stopped in terms of rule 25(1) of the said rules. Now there is nothing in the impugned order and the said F.I.Rs. Also do not spell out that the polling was so stopped in terms of rule 25(1) of the said rules. On the other hand, it is a matter of record that the polling stood resumed and continued and the results were also ascertained and ultimately consolidated. The learned D.R.O. Has also not made any effort to satisfy himself that the result of the election has been determined by the polling that has already been taken place at the Polling Stations in-question by taking into account the result of the polling at the other Polling Stations of the same U.C. Within the meaning of rule 25(2) of the said Rules.
6. Having, thus, considered the matter, I do find that the impugned order dated 20-8-2005 of the learned D.R.O., Layyah, is illegal, void, without lawful authority and is accordingly declared as such.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20-8-2005 is set aside. No order as to costs.
7. A copy of this judgment be remitted to the D.R.O.. Layyah, immediately.
8. It is further made clear that nothing observed herein shall in any manner influence the conduct of further proceedings pursuant to the said F.I.R. No.162 dated 18-8-2005 at Police Station, Karor and F.I.R. No.197 of the even date at Police Station Fatehpur (Annex `13' and 'E') and also any properly constituted proceedings brought by any aggrieved person either before the learned Chief Election Commission or a learned Election Tribunal constituted by the learned Chief Election Commissioner to challenge the said elections.