' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The petitioners filed this writ petition whereby they challenged impugned order dated 14-12-2005 passed by the respondent No.1, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gojra, in capacity of the Election Tribunal. In the impugned order, the learned Election Tribunal ordered for recounting of ballot papers of Union Council No.235, Iqbal Town, Faisalabad.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 contested election of Nazim and Naib Nazim respectively on one panel. The respondents Nos.3 and 4 also contested election as a rival panel for the same offices. According to the first count, the petitioners scored 2061 votes and respondents 2031 votes. Against the above result, an appeal was filed before the Chief Election Commissioner by the respondents for recounting. On behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner, order for recounting was signed by Section Officer (Record). Consequently, the Returning Officer recounted the votes of the rival parties on 29-8-2005. After the recounting, it was declared that petitioners got 1831 votes and respondents 1813 votes. Subsequently, an election petition was filed by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 on 26-9-2005. A reply to the election petition was submitted by the petitioners, the election petition is still pending. During the pendency of the election petition, the learned Election Tribunal, respondent No.1 passed impugned order on 14-12- 2005 for recounting which is impugned herein.
3. The gist of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no material before the learned Election Tribunal to pass the impugned order. The order of recounting cannot be passed in course, it has to be founded on some foundation. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied upon Muhammad Saeed Qazi and another v. Election Tribunal, 2004 CLC 631 and Malik Irshad Hussain and another v. Muhammad Ashraf Nagra and 12 others 2003 YLR 812(c).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4 has contended that the Polling Officer had illegally and wrongly counted 165 votes in favour of the petitioners. Likewise, 31 votes were counted in favour of the petitioners which were invalid. He further states that after the recounting by Returning Officer, the margin has further narrowed to 18 votes between the parties.
He adds that petitioners had not raised any objection when recounting was conducted by the Returning Officer, they should not have any objection even now if they have not committed any irregularity or illegality. He further submits that there is no prohibition in the law or rules for recounting for the second time if the Election Tribunal is so satisfied. He supports impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and also refers and rely upon the judgments referred to by respondent No.1 in his order dated 14-12-2005.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the case-law referred to.
6. In 2004 CLC 631, it was observed by the learned Single Bench, "it is settled law that the election petitioners cannot seek the recount of the votes as a right and the Tribunal should not direct the recount as a matter of course; for enabling the recount the conditions sine qua non are that there must be "a specific factual foundation" laid down in the election petition, it should be stated with accuracy as far as possible, the polling station if more than one, at which, the amiss and nature thereof has been committed in the count at the time of close of polls." Similarly, another judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is 2003 YLR 812, in the said judgment, it is held "power to direct recount of ballot papers had to be exercised if a proper factual foundation was laid down in the petition and the Election Tribunal was satisfied that a case for recounting was made out".
7. The present petition can be reexamined in the light of the above findings of the Superior Courts and also referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In appeal filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 before the Chief Election Commissioner, it was alleged that petitioner, Anjum Zahoor Saleemi had prepared fake identity cards and one person namely, Imdad Hussain was arrested in possession of several fake identity cards. The said person stated that the cards were given to him by Anjum Zahoor Saleemi who owns a Printing Press and the fake identity cards were prepared in the said Printing Press. It was also alleged in the appeal that at the time of announcement of result of the poll and in the presence of Press and Media, respondents were declared successful by 8 votes. It was also alleged that on the certified copy of votes, the Polling Officer showed 346 votes of the petitioners but the list which was computerized showed 364 votes of the petitioners. In addition to the above, another allegation levelled in the appeal was the Alamdar Shah, S.H.O. P.S. Batala Colony and petitioner No.1 entered into Polling Station, Zia Islam School, thereafter, the polling agents of . The respondents were turned out. After expelling the polling agents from the polling station, the room was locked and result of that polling station was changed by the Polling Officer.
Similar charges were leVelled in the election petition particularly in grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5.
8. The respondent No.1 has discussed all these allegations, in the impugned order, particularly in para.4. The respondent No.1, the learned Election Tribunal concluded his discussion in para.5 which is reproduced as under:- "So keeping in view all these facts and circumstances i.e. The assertions of the parties, irregularities of the polling staff as also observed by the Returning Officer and illegalities allegedly committed by the respondent No.3 during the process of recounting, it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice that recounting of ballot papers cast at all the polling stations pertaining to the constituency be carried , out. (Reliance placed upon 2005 SCM R 1699 and 2002 SCM R 1523).
Accordingly the Returning Officer be directed to transmit the polling bags consisting of polling record of the constituency through some responsible official in this Court on 5-1-2006 so that the process of recounting of ballot papers cast at all the polling stations pertaining to constituency U.0 No.235, Iqbal Town, Faisalabad be carried out in accordance with law."
9. Therefore, to my mind, the impugned order is compatible and in consonance with the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners besides the judgments referred to in the impugned order. The allegations in the appeal before the learned Chief Election Commissioner as well as in the Election petition are specific. Polling stations and illegalities committed therein are also pin-pointed with accuracy. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.