Election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No, 83, District Sahiwal, was contested by the private parties. The petitioners were declared returned. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 filed an election petition. The petition was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement denying the several allegations made therein. After the completion of the pleadings, an application was filed by the Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 stating that the Polling Staff at some Polling Station was closely related to the petitioners. In Polling Station of Chak No, 88/12-L the ladies were not provided with stamp and they were asked to put their thumb impressions. However, the ballots bearing thumb impressions as were cast in favour of the petitioners were counted as valid but those in favour of the Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 were rejected. It was further stated that in Chak Nos, 90, 93 and 88/12-L the ballots that came out of the boxes exceeded the polled ballots by one thousand. The 3rd allegation was that during the counting of votes, there was an electrical failure and it is apprehended that some ballot papers of the Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 were destroyed. with these allegations, the prayer was made that re-counting be ordered. The application was resisted by the petitioners. Vide order dated 14.10.2005 the learned Election Tribunal proceeded to order a re-count and to summon the election record on the ground that this would resolve the controversy.
2. Mr. M. Arif Alvi, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the case of Kanwar Ijaz Ali v. Irshad Ali and 2 others (P.L.D. 1986 SC 483), Naveed Sadiq Khan and another v. Election Tribunal and others (2004 S.C.M.R. 852), Zulfiqar Ali v. Election Tribunal/Civil Judge 1st Class, Khanpur and 3 others (2000 M LD 746) and Liaquat Ali and another v. Election Tribunal, Sialkot and others (2003 SCM R 1313) argues that the impugned order is without lawful authority inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has passed the same on vague allegations and not on specific allegations and the order has been passed without recording evidence. Mr. Altaf Ibrahim, Advocate/learned counsel for Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, on the other hand, relies on the case of Sheikh I f tikhar-ud- Din and another v. District Judge, Bahawalpur Exercising Powers of Election Tribunal for Union Council of District Lodhran and 8 others.
4. Mr. Altaf Ibrahim, Advocate, complains that his clients have given up all other grounds and if evidence is to be recorded, it will take years. To my mind, the apprehension is mis-placed.
5. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. the impugned order dated 14.10.2005 of the learned Respondent No, 1 is declared to be without lawful authority and is set aside. He shall proceed to record the statement of any one of the election petitioners and then in rebuttal to record the statement of any one of the writ petitioners and of course, giving a chance to both the parties to cross-examine each other and thereafter to decide the matter of re-count. A. copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Respondent No,
1. No, orders as to costs.