JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J. - Instant constitutional petition challenged order dated 8.11.2005, passed by respondent No. 1 to be declared illegal, void and of no legal' consequence, whereby election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that petitioner alongwith Ch. Shabhir Hussan, his co-candidate, contested the recent local bodies election held on 18.8.2005 for the seat of Nazim/Naib Nazim of Union Council-3, Bhattikeyt Wazirabad Town. The . Opponents of the petitioner were respondents Nos. 3 to 8. Espondents Nos. .3 and 4 were declared to be successful and their result was accordingly notified. -Petitioner claimed that respondent No. 3 had attached a bogus matriculation certificate alongwith his nomination papers, whereas he was not qualified to contest the elections, thus he filed an election petition before the nominated Election Tribunal (respondent No. 1).
3. Respondents Nos: 3 AND 4 being successful candidates and respondents to the election petition, contested the same by filing their written reply controverting the allegations of the petitioner.
Respondent No. 3 also moved an application for rejection of election petition on the ground that the same was not verified in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Rules 65 and 67 in this behalf being mandatory in nature, the election petition deserved summary dismissal under Rule 72 of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005*. The election Tribunal' having already issued notice to the respondents after hearing preliminary. Arguments 'of the petitioner, framed issues arising out of controversial stance of parties and thereafter took up application of respondent No. 3 and dismissed the election petition on 89.11 2005, holding that verification of the same was, not correctly inscribed. Petitioner, thereafter, filed instant constitutional petition with the relief, noted above, and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are the real contestant, in response to notice by this Court, appeared alongwith respondent No. 9 and were represented through their counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, election petition filed by the petitioner carries a verification to the effect "I attest on oath that paragraphs of the petition are correct as per my knowledge and belief. Dated 7.9.2005 at Hafizabad. Sd-." but it has beep found to be opposed to the provisions of Order VI rule 15(2), CPC by the Election Tribunal resulting in dismissal of the same. Rule 67(3) of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005 envisaged that every election petition and every schedule annexed thereto shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for verification of pleadings. Under earlier mentioned provisions of law, the person verifying is required to specify the reference to paragraph numbers of the pleadings what he verifies on his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and belief, to be true. This requirement was examined by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sardarzada Zafar. Abbas and others Vs. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others (PLJ 2006 S.C. 151) and jt was mandated that this requirement of verification under civil law are generally directory in nature and omission to do so can be rectified subsequently during Trial and even the Court can direct such rectification but as regards election petitions, those were held to be mandatory being backed with penal consequences as per provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976. Respectfully following the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court, requirement of Rule 67(3) of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005, in case of default, has to face consequences, as"per Rule 72(a) of the Rules (ibid), thus requirement of verification of an election petition, assailing local bodies elections was also mandatory.
5. In the case in hand, election petition has been verified on oath but the same has not been inscribed by reference to paragraph numbers and instead all the- paragraphs thereof were attested on oath on knowledge and belief. This situation was also examined by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others (supra) and relevant findings are in paragraph 8 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the respondent raised another objection that the election petitioners in their verifications have failed to give reference to the paragraphs of the pleadings as to what; he either happened to verify on his own knowledge and what he happened to 'verify upon information received and believed to be true. Such objection is not very material because at times the entire statement happens to be given on the basis of one's knowledge and at times on the basis of information received, It depends upon the facts of each case, as to what category the assertions belong.- The situation is likely to differ from case to case."
Averments in the election petition, if scanned on the touchstone of the judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court, part of which has been reproduced above, revealed that petitioner's statement in the election' petition that respondent No, 3 appended with his nomination papers a bogus matriculation certificate could be on account of his own knowledge/belief, thus on this score the election petition could not have been graded to be defective. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 could not demonstratethat which paragraphs of the election petition should have been verified by the petitioner on his own knowledge and which of those should have been verified on information received and believed to be true.
6. Record revealed that election petition filed by the petitioner underwent scrutiny by. Staff of the Election Tribunal, whereafter the same was admitted to regular hearing, after hearing preliminary arguments by the learned Presiding Officer but no objection regarding incorrect verification of the.
Same was ever raised, thus objection of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that verification on the election petition was subsequently inscribed by the petitioner had no value. The Election Tribunal initially deserted adjudication of application filed by respondent No. 3 for rejection of election petition and after fixing of case for evidence and after summoning of record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, opted to v decide the same without explaining any reason for assumption of such jurisdiction. I was also not persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 . And 4 that the verification of the election petition was not attested by an Oath Commission, for the reason that this attestation is not requirement of Order Vi rule 15 CPC. Attestation on oath and how it is to be made is provided by Oath Act which has neither been referred in Order VI rule 15 CPC nor in Rule 67(3) of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005. Above all, the Election Tribunal having deserted adjudication of application filed by respondent No. 3 through framing of issues, should have taken up this matter at the time of final decision of the matter, but he acted in haste in non-suiting the petitioner and that to, on untenable.Reasons to which the Honourable Supreme Court has graciously answered in the case of Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others (supra).
7. For the reasons noted above order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge with the powers of Election Tribunal, Hafizabad, being tainted with patent illegalities is not sustainable and consequently, by accepting instant petition, the same is declared to be void and non-existent in the eye of law, with the result that election petition filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be, pending and will be decided on merits, in accordance with law. Parties are directed -to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 4.5.2006. There will be no order as to costs..