Petitioners contested the election of Nazim/Naib Nazim of Union Council-138 Keer Kalan, Nishtar Town, Lahore, and complained that the election was subjected to most corrupt and illegal election A practices. According to them, the election result was also prepared out of tampering/ forgery, thus it was prayed that re-count of ballot papers may be ordered at least at Polling Station No.2 of Union Council 138 and the petitioners may be directed to be declared as successful by the Returning Officer.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. Challenge to the local bodies election on the basis of pre or post election disqualifications, illegal/corrupt election practices or its rigging, consolidation of result or any correction therein, re-count of ballot papers or re-poll (in part or in full) after transmission of result by R.0 exclusion or inclusion of names from the list of successful candidates or fresh election, legally can be done by the tribunals constituted for this purpose on an election petition, in accordance with law applicable. Besides it, disputed grounds raised by the petitioners do not furnish lawful basis for intervention by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Aftab Shahban Mirani v.
President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCM R 1863 mandated that generally in an election process, the High Court cannot interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction and the only exception pointed out to this rule is that where no legal remedy is available to an aggrieved party, during process of election or after its completion but in the case in hand Election Tribunal has already been notified, thus the petitioner must seek redress of grievances from there.
3. In another case the Honourable Supreme Court graciously held that after consolidation/transmission of election result in Form-XVI, under rule 36 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 the Returning Officer becomes functus officio and cannot intervene in the concluded process of elections on whatever ground. Petitioners can only challenge election of the returned candidate through an election petition before the Tribunal on any of the grounds mentioned in rule 76 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 neither the Returning Officer is competent to intervene nor this Court can direct him to undertake such an activity.
4. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this petition is not maintainable and the petitioners may, if so advised, have redress of their grievances from the competent forum constituted in this behalf. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.