SYED SHABBIR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The petitioners contested election of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No. 9, District .Bhakkar against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed election petition before respondent No. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, said election petition was not duly signed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was also not verified under Order 6, rule 15 of CPC read with Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005.
2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application seeking amendment in the election petition which was opposed by the petitioners. The Election Tribunal, respondent No, 3 allowed application for amendmen Vmodification of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide order dated 14.1.2005.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Election Tribunal was bound to dismiss election petition under rule 72 of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules as requirement of rule 67 were not fulfilled. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to a judgment of my learned brother Mian Hamid Farooq, J/Election Tribunal. Without going into deeper analysis and discussion, it is pointed out that the said decision was given under section 52 of the Representation of People Act, 1976, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case which is governed by the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005 read with Punjab.
Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
4. Under rule 67(3), every election petition is required to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. The consequences are given in rule 72 which reads as under:--- "The Tribunal may dismiss an election petition if---
(a) The provisions of rules 67 and 70 have not been complied with; or
(b) The allegations contained therein are vague or do not disclose the commission of any corrupt practice, material irregularity, or other illegal act."
Rule 72 starts, "the Tribunal may" instead of "the Tribunal shall". The language of rule 72 signifies that it is discretionary for the Election Tribunal to dismiss an election petition if requirements of rule 67 are not fulfilled, it is not mandatory for him in all circumstances to dismiss an election petition. For further guidance 2004 M LD 1331, Zulfiqar Hassan v. Mirza Haq Nawaz is referred to. Even my learned brother, Mian Hamid Farooq, J. Held while hearing Election Petition No. 3 of 2003, Rana Muhammad Hayat v. Sardar Talib Hussain Nikai, that Election Tribunal having all powers of Civil Court trying a suit under C.P.C. Can allow parties to amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings, if same is necessary for ensuring for fair and effective trial and determination of real question in controversy. Moreover, rule 72 is to be read with rule 71(4) which is as under:--- "The Tribunal may, at any time, upon such terms and on payment of such cost as it may direct, allow a petition to be amended in such a manner as may, in its opinion, be necessary for ensuring a fare and effective trial and for determining the real question in controversy, so however that no new ground of challenge to the election is permitted to be raised."
The learned Tribunal exercised its powers under rule 71(4) , of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order, it is, as a matter of fact, consistent and compatible with rule 71(4).
5. - The learned counsel also referred to PLD 2005 SC 600 and 2000 SCM R 250. It may be pointed out that in PLD 2005 SC 600, the order passed by the Election Tribunal comprising my learned brother Mian Hamid Farooq, J. Was challenged and the appeal was accepted. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner should have decided whether he relied upon order of the Election Tribunal (Election Petition No. 1/2003) or PLD 2005 SC 600, Sardarzada Zafar Abbas v. Syed Hassan Murtaza? Both cannot be relied upon, it would be self-contradictory. As stated above, in the above case, election of Provincial Assembly was challenged under Representation of the People Act, 1976 and not under Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 read with the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005. Similarly, the learned counsel has wrongly referred to 2000 SCM R 250, wherein provisions of Houses and Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election)
Order (P.O. 5 of 1977), Senate (Election) Act (LI of 1975) and the Constitution of Pakistan were under discussion.
6. In Abdul Nasir and another v. Election Tribunal, T.T. Singh, the Hontble ,Supreme Court while deciding an election petition relating to the post of Nazim and Naib Nazim, Union Council No. 272, Faisalabad held that mere defect regarding verification of election petition would not render the same unmaintainable. For further guidance see 2004 SCM R 602, Abdul Nasir v. Election Tribunal T.T.
Singh - and others.
7. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is dismissed at limine stage.