' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- -The petitioners and the private respondents contested elections to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No,83, Burewala. Upon the close of polls, the petitioners were declared returned with 2250 votes, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 following with 2120 votes while the respondents Nos.6 and 7 obtained 1670 votes. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 challenged the said election by filing an election petition. The grievance primarily was made with reference to the illegalities committed during the count of votes. The petition was resisted by the petitioners. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. At this stage, respondents Nos.2 and. 3 filed an application that in case a re-count is ordered at Polling Station Nos.9 and 10, they will be withdrawing the other grounds. This application was resisted. It was decided with reference to the evidence on record and allowed on 2-6-2006. A re-count, was conducted and as a result of the said re-count, it was found that the total number of votes polled by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are 2096 while those of the petitioners and respondents Nos.6 and 7 are 2006 and 1575 respectively. The election petition was accordingly allowed and respondents Nos.2 and 3 were declared returned vide judgment dated 25-7-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that 135 votes cast in favour of the petitioners had been illegally rejected by the learned Election Tribunal when they did carry official stamps. He has also argued that the recovery of 54 votes polled in favour of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 from the envelop of the petitioners, is not free of doubt. Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate, representing the contesting respondents has straightway offered that let all the votes rejected on the said ground (i.e, bearing the stamp but not signatures of the P.O.) be counted as valid. Now, there-. Is no valid objection to the recovery of said 54 votes either before the learned Election Tribunal or in this Court.
The precise contention is that even if the votes so rejected are treated as valid and counted in favour of the respective parties, the result would be the same i.e, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have the majority.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record, appended with this writ petition. The consolidated statement is available at page 27 of the file. There were total 11 Polling Stations in the constituency.
There is no dispute regarding Polling Stations Nos.1 to 8 and 11. The re-count was conducted for reasons recorded on 2-6-2006 at Polling Stations Nos.9 and 10.
4. At P.S.No,9, the petitioners had 638 valid votes, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had 68 votes while respondents Nos.6 and 7 had 33 votes. A total number of 34 votes were rejected at this P.S.
5. Now as a result of re-count, valid votes of the petitioners were found to be 415 while the invalid votes were 224. These include the said 135 votes that were rejected because of absence of signatures of the P.O. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 were found to have 42 valid votes while 26 were rejected on the same ground. Now 54 valid votes cast in favour of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 were also found in the envelop of the petitioners. So far as the respondents Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, they were found to have 26 valid votes while 7 were rejected on the aforementioned ground.
6. At P.S. No,10, the petitioners had 245 votes, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had 356 votes while respondents Nos.6 and 7, 111 votes. The number of rejected votes were 46. Upon a re-count, the total number of votes recovered from the envelop of the petitioners were 244 and out of these 20 were found to be doubled stamped while 224 were found to be valid, in the envelope of the respondents Nos.2 and 3, 364 votes were found and out of these 358 were valid and six were doubled stamped.
There was no change in the result of respondents Nos.6 and 7. Now I may note here that the said 54 votes were also rejected because of absence of the signatures of P.O
7. Now so far as the said contention of the learned counsel as to rejection of 135 votes on the ground that these do not bear the signatures of the P.O. Whereas they do bear the stamp, does carry force. Under rule 35(4), (iii)(a), of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005, only such vote can be excluded from the count which bears no official marks. Since the said votes did bear the seal of the P.O., they could not have been excluded from the count and same goes for the votes cast in favour of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and rejected for the same reason. Thus, I do hold that the said 135 votes are to be counted in favour of the petitioners while the said 54 plus 26 votes are to be counted in favour of the respondents. Nos.2 and 3 (P.S. No,9).
8. Now so far P.S. 10 is concerned, the allegation is that the respondents somehow or other doubled stamped the said 20 votes cast in favour of the petitioners and the learned tribunal has refrained from making any observation in the matter. When confronted, learned counsel for the respondents states that either the double stamped votes of both the set of candidates be excluded or the same be included and in both the cases the result would not be materially changed.
9. This leaves the question of the said 54 votes found in the envelope of the petitioners. I do not find any objection before the learned Tribunal with regard to the same. However, before me, it has been sought to be argued that somehow or the other those 54 votes were removed and then fresh 54 votes were re-inserted. There is no material on record to prima facie support the said contention so as to institute an inquiry into the same. The learned counsel then tried to argue that the re-count could not have been ordered without recording evidence. The contention is baseless. In the first instance, the re-count has, id fact, been ordered after recording evidence and, in the second, in view of the specific allegations made in the election petition, the re-count would have been ordered even if no evidence had been recorded.
10. Thus, while maintaining the ultimate judgment of the learned Election Tribunal declaring respondents Nos.2 and 3 to be successful candidates, the writ petition is disposed of with a modification that the result would be consolidated after adding the said 135 votes in favour of the petitioners and the said 54 and 26 votes in favour of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 as valid votes.
The schedule to the impugned judgment shall accordingly stand amended after the said addition of 135 votes in the valid votes of the petitioners (Muhammad Afzal etc.) and of 80 votes in the valid votes of respondents Nos.2 and 3 (Malik Iftikhar etc.) at P.S. No,9. No orders as to costs.