Election of the petitioners was called in question by Respondents No, 2 and 3. During the course of proceedings, learned tribunal framed four issues on 15.2.2006. Respondents No, 2 and 3 filed an application on 21.2.2006, under Order XVI, Rule 1, with the prayer to allow the applicant to deposit process fee for summoning the witness. The petitioners (herein) filed application on 11.3.2006, for dismissal of application of Respondents No, 2 and 3, moved for permission to deposit process fee.
Learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.3.2006, allowed the application directed the summoning of witnesses. Petitioner have assailed order dated 11.3.2006 in the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of Order XVI, Rule 1 have not been complied with, that provisions of Order XVI, Rule 2 are attracted only when Rule 1 of Order XVI is complied; that provisions of Rule 2 are subservient to Rule 1 and; that the direction for deposit of expenses and for summoning of witnesses, without filing of list of witnesses and certificate of readiness to produce witness, is not legally permissible. Such order is not,sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondents No, 2 and 3 on the other hand has fully supported the impugned order. Learned counsel has referred to Rule 71(1)(b) of Punjab Local Government Election Rules 2005, which provides for filing of the list of witnesses within 15 days. Learned counsel has submitted that issues in the instant case were framed on 15.2.2006 and list of witnesses was filed on 21.2.2006, well within a time.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
5. Procedure before the Election Tribunal is governed under the special statute i,e, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2005. A special procedure has been provided under Punjab Local Government (Election Rules) 2005. Rule 71(b) reads as:
71. Procedure before tribunal.-- (1)
(a) ...................................................................
(b) require the parties to file within fifteen days of the date on which the case is fixed for evidence, a list of witnesses whom they propose to produce to give evidence or to produce documents, mentioning against the name of each witness a precise of the evidence that each witness is expected to give;"
By now it is well settled principal of law that when a special law provides its own procedure for proceedings, provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are ousted to that extent. In view of Rule 71(ibid), provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 are not applicable to the proceedings before Election Tribunal. Petitioner in the instant case filed list of witnesses on 21.2.2006, within 6 days of framing of issues, which were framed on 15.2.2006.
The order impugned is thus devoid of any illegality or legal infirmity.
6. Order passed by learned Tribunal dated 2.3.2006 reflects that petitioners conveyed to the learned Tribunal that proceedings before it, were stopped by this Court, through order dated 2.3.2006. Conversely the proceedings were specifically allowed to be continued and injunctive order was to the extent of, passing of final order. This shows that petitioners are bent upon to delay the matter by hook or crook: Such conduct is not appreciated.
7. In view of the above, no illegality or infirmity is seen in the impugned order, to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed as such with costs of Rs, 10,000/ (rupees ten thousand only).