1. ' GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, C.J.---Both the above titled petitions arise out of a common question of facts and law, hence, are heard together and are decided as such.
2. ' Petitioners in both the petitions are rival candidates in recent elections for the seat of Legislative Assembly from LA-16 Bagh-4 held on 26-6-2011. Ch, Muhammad Aziz (petitioner in petition No,1065/11) is a nominee of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference whereas Faisal Mumtaz Rathore, (petitioner in petition No,1074/11) is a ticket holder of Pakistan Peoples Party. Both seek direction to the official respondents for notifying them as successful candidate against one and the same seat i,e, LA-16 Bagh-4. The case of Ch. Muhammad Aziz is that he secured 30469 votes from 165 polling stations including the votes of the employees whereas his rival Faisal Mumtaz Rathore obtained 31839 votes. After completion of the polling, bags of 5 polling stations were deliberately snatched from the Presiding Officers with connivance of his rival Faisal Mumtaz Rathore who was losing election. As per his stand Polling agents were given duly attested receipts of the result of 5 polling stations which reveals that petitioner secured 2007 votes and Faisal Mumtaz Rathore obtained 210 votes. It is further alleged that total votes of petitioner are 32476 whereas Faisal Mumtaz Rathore obtained 32049 votes, hence, he is a returned candidate. An application was made to respondents Nos.1 to 3 for consolidation of the results on the basis of the receipts given by the Presiding Officers to his polling agents but the Returning Officer as well as the learned Chief Election Commissioner has not accepted these receipts rather has issued notification dated 1-7-2011 for re-polling on 8 polling stations of the said constituency. It is pleaded that result issued by the Presiding Officers under section 35 subsection (11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 carries presumption of truth and is liable to be considered for consolidation of the result and order of re-election is ab initio void, without lawful authority and is an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction. In alternative, petitioner has prayed that on Polling Stations Nos.162, 163, 105, 85 and 86 more than actual votes entered in electoral roll have been polled, therefore, if at all, reelection was necessary then these polling stations were liable to be included in re-polling order.
3. ' Petition has been contested by Faisal Mumtaz Rathore, respondent No,6 by filing separate written statement. It is stated by him that petitioner is not aggrieved and has an alternate remedy for redressal of his grievance. It is further stated by him that petition has been filed for ill-gotten-gains and to get rid of F.I.Rs, lodged against the supporters of the respondent/petitioner by the polling staff. Rest of the facts pleaded in the petition have also been refuted. The official respondents have also refuted all the allegations through their separale written statement.
4. ' Faisal Mumtaz Rathore has also challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Election Commissioner for re-election through his separate petition (Petition No,1074 of 2011). It is pleaded by him that on the basis of the report of the Returning Officer dated 1-7-2011 he may be declared as successful candidate and the respondents be ordered to notify him as such. It is claimed by him that order of the learned Chief Election Commissioner is based on no evidence and ultra vires of section 24-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, which in fact has been issued to protect interest of his rival candidate (Ch. Muhammad Aziz).
5. ' This petition has been contested by Ch. Muhammad Aziz and the official respondents by filing separate written statements. The grounds are the same which have been taken in their earlier written statement, hence, needs not to be reiterated.
6. ' Kh. M. Naseem, the learned Advocate for Ch. Muhammad Aziz, petitioner, inter alia argued that order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 1-7-2011 is ultra vires of section 24-A of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 because there was no justification for passing the impugned notification before the learned Chief Election Commissioner.
7. The learned Advocate contended that re-election can be ordered only when any ballot box used at polling station is unlawfully taken, or removed out of the custody of the Presiding Officer or is accidentally or intentionally destroyed or other eventuality mentioned in clauses (A) and (B) of section 24-A happen which is of such nature that result of the poll at such polling station cannot be ascertained. He submitted that the learned Chief Election Commissioner is empowered to order for fresh poll when any error or irregularity which is likely to vitiate the poll is committed at a polling station and the returning Officer of the constituency has reported for re-election. The learned Advocate further submitted that nothing mentioned in clauses (A) and (B) of section 24-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 has taken place, therefore, the order of re-election in the said constituency is not covered by the above provision of law. The learned Advocate alleged that the order has not been passed by the learned Chief Election Commissioner under subsections (2) and (3) of section 24-A on its own motion. He argued that after closing of polling and counting of votes polled at the polling stations, result was prepared and the polling bags were being taken to the office of the Returning Officer when the supporters of the rival candidate (Faisal Mumtaz Rathore) attacked on them and snatched the polling bags and this fact is supported by F.I.R. Lodged by the concerned Officer. He submitted that result on the basis of the receipts issued by the Presiding Officers of the polling stations to agents of petitioner were liable to be accepted by the Returning Officer and he was bound to consolidate the result by relying on these receipts. The learned Advocate contended that these chits have statutory backing and carries presumption of truth because neither the respondents have challenged nor controverted these receipts in their written statement, hence, the same shall be taken as admitted.
8. The learned Advocate further contended that Chief Election Commissioner has disposed of the applications of his client in a telegraphic manner without obtaining the report from the Returning Officer. He argued that Returning Officer has played a role of an agent of the rival candidate because he has not replied the letter of the Chief Election Commissioner whereby a report was sought from him with regard to the excessive polling at Polling Stations Nos.162, 163, 105, 85 and 86..
9. He argued that more than the actual votes have been polled on the abovementioned polling stations, therefore, matter was covered by subsections (2) and (3) of section 24-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 and it was enjoined upon the Chief Election Commissioner to exercise suo motu powers for cancellation of the results and order for re-polling but he failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him for conducting election honestly, fairly and justly.
10. ' Mr. Abdul Waheed Durani, advocate has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of Kh. M.
11. Naseem, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
12. ' Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Janjua, the learned counsel for Faisal Mumtaz Rathore (respondent) contended that as per certificate issued by the Returning Officer the petitioner has obtained more votes than Ch. Muhammad Aziz therefore, the Returning Officer as well as the Chief Election Commissioner were bound to declare his client (Faisal Mumtaz Rathore) as returned candidate from constituency LA-16 Bagh-4. He further contended that order of re-election is illegal, ultra vires of section 24-A of the Azad Jammu Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, hence, is ab initio void. The learned counsel argued that the chits issued by the Presiding Officers are not of worth consideration because the same have been issued with different signatures and under a common seal. These chits, according to the learned counsel have rightly not been relied upon by the Chief Election Commissioner. He further argued that as the order of re-polling has been passed on the report of the Returning Officer, which has not been challenged, therefore, the order based on the report cannot be set aside. In this regard the learned Advocate placed reliance on Writ Petition No,1051/11 titled Sardar Abdul Qayyum Niazi v. Chief Election Commissioner and others decided by full bench on 1-7-2011. The learned counsel submitted that so far as the allegation of excessive polling is concerned, that is the question of fact which needs detailed inquiry that by whom these votes have been polled and the proper forum for the purpose is Election Tribunal. According to him even otherwise for resolution of an election dispute the proper proceeding is an election petition. He argued that this petition is liable to be dismissed in presence of adequate, alternate and efficacious remedy. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is not aggrieved and has filed this petition for ulterior motive with unclean hands therefore, same may be dismissed with costs.
13. ' Mir Abdul Latif, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that the order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner is self explanatory and strictly in accordance with the provision contained in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections)
14. Ordinance, 1970, therefore both the petitions merit dismissal and none of the petitioner can be declared as returned candidate in the circumstances of, the case.
15. ' We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and gone through the record of the case and the relevant laws with utmost care.
16. The argument of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Janjua that as an election dispute has been raised through the instant petition, therefore, aggrieved party should wait till the establishment of the Election Tribunal and then file appropriate proceedings is devoid of any force. If the argument is accepted then candidate who has not been dealt with, in accordance with, law has to wait the completion of the election and thereafter, has to challenge an order passed on intermediate stage by an election authority. This view has not accepted by a Division Bench of Karachi High Court in Ghulam Mustafa.
17. Jatoi's case [PLD 1994. Karachi 1]. We may reproduce relevant para No,13, which is as under:- "We were tentatively of the view that Article 225 does not bar the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution till the actual Election takes place.
18. As otherwise, by patently illegal orders passed by any authority purporting to act under Election Laws, a person, otherwise entitled to take part in elections, can be deprived of his rights and then required to wait till the election is over and then file Election Petition for redress of his grievance against the alleged illegal or mala fide order passed much earlier to the actual date of election. In this connection, some illustrations can be given. For instance, through a bona fide mistake or for mala fide reasons or ulterior purposes, names of all the candidates, except one, are deleted from the list of validly nominated candidates by the Returning Officer after the period for filing appeals before the Tribunal under section 14(5) of '1976 Act is over. In such event, despite the passing of such illegal or mala fide order, the alone candidate remaining in the field will be declared elected and all the other candidates whose names had A been deleted would have to wait for the time when the election petitions can be filed and await the decision of the election Petitions. There can be a case where documentary evidence is available .To show that polling staff appointed for certain polling stations has been transferred or removed for mala fide reasons to favour one candidate or the other. If the remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution is barred and the only remedy that is available is by way of election petition after election are over, the entire exercise of holding elections may turn out to be a farce."
19. ' The argument, therefore, in light of the view taken by the Division Bench is hereby repelled. We are of the considered view if the argument of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua is allowed to be prevailed then sections 24-A and 92 of the Azad Jammu Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, which empowered the Chief Election Commissioner to exercise the powers for conducting the election justly, fairly and honestly will become redundant.
20. ' The contention of Kh. Muhammad Naseem, the learned advocate for Ch. Muhammad Aziz, that a complete scheme for conducting election, counting and consolidation of result has been laid down in the election Laws. The receipts issued to the polling agents by the Presiding Officers are issued under section 35(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, therefore, final result could be consolidated on the basis of these receipts has no force. No doubt, that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 recognized appointment of the election and polling agents under sections 20 and 21 of the Ordinance. The purpose is to watch the interest of the candidate and to see that polling at a polling station is being conducted justly, fairly and honestly in accordance with the scheme of Ordinance, rules and instructions of the Chief Election Commissioner. It may be stated that the procedure to be followed by the Presiding Officers at the close of the poll is provided under section 35 of the Ordinance. Under subsection (9) of section 35, the Presiding Officer shall after the count prepare a statement of the count in such form as may be prescribed showing therein the number of valid votes polled by each contesting candidate and ballot papers excluded from the count. The Presiding Officer shall also prepare in the prescribed form a ballot paper count showing separately:--
(a) The number of ballot papers entrusted to him;
(b) The number of ballot papers taken out of the ballot boxes and counted;
(c) The number of tendered ballot papers;
(d) The number of challenged ballot papers;
(e) The number of un-issued ballot papers; and
(f) (f) The number of spoiled ballot papers.
21. ' Thereafter, such a statement shall be given to the polling agent. The receipts appended with petition by Ch. Muhammad Aziz have not been prepared on relevant form prescribed by rules.
22. Though sub-sections 9 and 10 of section 35 are substantive Law on the subject, has to be observed by the Presiding Officer after the close of the poll at polling stations but Rules 23 and 24 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 made it obligatory for the Presiding Officer to prepare the statement of count under subsection (9) of section 35 in form XIV.
23. Similarly, Rule 24 also makes it obligatory that valid paper count referred to in subsection (10) of section 35 shall be prepared in form XV. The duty of the Returning Officer is to consolidate the result in form XVI. In view of the above, we are clear in our mind that receipts issued to the agents cannot be considered for the purpose of consolidation of the result. Where polling has not been disturbed and result of the same has been hijacked outside the polling station or polling bags are destroyed thereafter or snatched from the polling staff while they are in their way to deposit the same in the office of the Returning Officer then the statement of count prepared by them in the aforesaid manner and signed by the agents can be considered in some cases. But the difficulty will remain there at the time of official counting under section 36 of the Ordinance and Rule 25 of the Election Rules. For proper appreciation of the matter sections 36 and 25 are reproduced as under:-- ' Section 36.---(1) The Returning Officer shall give the candidates and their election agents a notice in writing of the day, time and place for the consolidation of the results and, in the presence of such of the contesting candidates and election agents as may be present, consolidate in the prescribed manner the results of the count furnished by the Presiding Officers including therein the postal ballots received by him before the time aforesaid.
(2) Before consolidating the results of the count, the Returning Officer shall examine the ballot papers excluded from the count by the Presiding Officer and, if he finds that any such ballot paper should not have been so excluded, count it as a ballot paper cast in favour of the contesting candidate for whom the vote has been cast thereby.
(3) The Returning Officer shall also count the ballot papers received by him by post in such manner as may be prescribed and include the votes cast in favour of each contesting candidate in the consolidated statement except those which he may reject on any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (4) of section 35.
(4) The ballot papers rejected by the Returning Officer under subsection (3) shall be shown separately in the consolidated statement.
(5) The Returning Officer shall not recount the valid ballot papers in respect of any polling station, unless---
(a) The count by the Presiding Officer is challenged in writing by a contesting candidate or his election agent and the Returning Officer is satisfied about the reasonableness of the challenge; or
(b) He is directed so to do by the Commissioner."
24. "Rule 25.---(1) The Returning Officer shall consolidate in Form XVI the result of the count furnished by the Presiding Officers.
(2) Before consolidating the results, the [Returning Officer] shall open the packet containing the ballot papers excluded from the count by the Presiding Officer as also the Packet containing the challenged ballot paper as was excluded from the count by the Presiding Officer.
(3) If the Returning Office finds that any ballot paper excluded from the count by the Presiding Officer should not have been so excluded he shall count it as a valid ballot paper cast in favour of the contesting, candidate for whom it was cast: ' Provided that in so doing the Returning Officer shall not mix up the ballot papers taken out from the packet labeled 'challenged ballot papers' but shall keep the entire lot of challenged ballot papers in a separate packet.
(4) The Returning Officer shall reject a ballot paper hereinafter referred to as 'rejected ballot paper' recording thereon the fact if, such rejection if it suffers from any of the defects mentioned in subsection (4) of section 35.
(5) If any contesting candidate or election agent objects to the rejection of ballot paper, the Returning Office shall add to his endorsement the words 'rejection objected'.
(6) In consolidating the result of the count, the Returning Officer shall record the number of valid ballot paper cast in favour of each contesting candidate as shown by the Presiding Officer in the Statement of the count unless figures thereof have undergone a change as a result of recount under subsection (5) of Section 36, in which case he shall record the figures arrived at after recount.
(7) Before recording the number of valid votes in the consolidated statement against the name of each contesting candidate, the number of ballot papers, if any, which were treated by him as valid but had been excluded from .'the count by the Presiding Office shall be taken into account including those treated as valid from the challenged votes.
(8) The ballot papers rejected by the Returning Officer under sub-rule (4) shall be shown separately in the consolidated statement. a
(9) The consolidated statement shall be so competed that the figures in respect of one polling station are completed before the incorporation of the figures in respect of the other.
(10) The Returning Officer shall deal with the postal ballot papers in the following manners namely:-
(i) No cover in Form X containing a postal ballot paper received by the Returning Officer after the expiry of the time fixed in that behalf shall be opened and no vote contained in any such ballot paper shall be counted;
(ii) The Returning Officer shall" close and seal the packet referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15;
(iii) All other covers in Form X containing postal ballot papers shall then be opened one after another;
(iv) As each cover is opened the Returning Officer shall scrutinize the declaration in Form VIII contained therein and shall reject the ballot paper and make an appropriate endorsement on the cover in Form IX without opening the same---
(a) If that said declaration is not found in the cover in Form X; or
(b) If the said declaration is substantially defective; or
(c) If the serial number of ballot paper entered in the said declaration differs from such number endorsed on the cover in Form IX;
(v) Each cover so endorsed and the declaration received with it shall be replaced in the cover in Form X; and all such covers in Form X shall be kept in a separate packet which shall be sealed and on which the following particulars shall be recorded, namely:---
(a) the name of the constituency;
(b) the date of counting; and
(c) a brief description of its contents;
(vi) The Returning Officer shall then place all the declarations in Form VIII which he has found to be in order in a separate packet which shall be sealed before any cover in Form IX is opened and on which shall be recorded the particulars referred to in clause (v).
(vii) All covers in Form IX containing postal ballot papers which have not already been dealt with under the foregoing provisions of this rule shall then be opened one after another and the Returning Officer shall scrutinize each ballot paper and decide the validity of the vote recorded thereby; {viii) A postal ballot shall be liable to rejection of the grounds mentioned in subsection (4) of section 35, reference in that subsection to prescribed mark being construed as reference to cross mark mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 12;
(ix) The Returning Officer shall count all the valid votes given by postal ballot in favour of each contesting candidate and record the total thereof as well as the number polled by each such candidate in the consolidated statement in Form XVI; and Polling Station #Name of Polling Station #Total votesPolled votesExtra polled votes 162 Middle School Padar 985 712 27 163 Girls Middle School Padar670 680 10 105 P/S Khoriwala Mandhar607 626 19 85 P/S Tadaban 436 441 5 86 High School Hilan Male.549 555 6(x) All valid postal ballot papers shall, after they have been counted, be placed in separate packet which shall be sealed and on which shall be recorded-
(a) the name of constituency;
(b) the date of counting; and
(c) a brief description of. The contents."
25. ' The above reproduced provision of Ordinance and rules clearly provides that at the time of consolidation of the result the Returning Officer shall open the bag and if there is no bag then of course, result cannot be ascertained and declared.
26. The contention of Kh. Muhammad Naseem that it was also enjoined upon the Chief Election Commissioner to pass an order for re-polling on polling stations where excessive votes have been polled because there is an irregularity and error with in purview of section 24-B of the Ordinance and the Chief Election Commissioner has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him under subsection (2) of section 24A read with section 92 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 has a substance. Though to this extent no report is made by the Returning Officer but this fact is not denied by Faisal Mumtaz Rathore in his pleadings nor the learned Chief Election Commissioner in his written statement. No other material is placed before the Court to negate the assertion of the petitioner. The only reply of the Chief Election Commissioner is that the matter has not been reported by the Returning Officer for re-polling. The description of the excess poll at Polling Stations. Nos.162, 163, 105, 85 and 86 is as under:-- ' A perusal of the above shows that excess votes have been polled on the above mentioned polling stations. As stated above, the polling scheme appended with the replication or record of the Election Commission does not show that any additional voters list ( ) has been furnished on these polling stations, therefore, a grave illegality is committed in conducting the poll on these polling stations. An application annexure C/2 has been made by Ch. Muhammad Aziz to the Chief Election Commissioner for fresh polling but the same remained undecided. We are of the view that the polling on the above polling stations is not fair and such polling is a stigma on the election as has been observed by the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Raja Abdul Qayyum's case [1995 SCR 1]. At page 40 of the report "their lordship has observed as under:- "It may be observed that these cases are those in which excess votes were found from the polling box and not cases in which more votes were polled then a total number of registered voters, as in the present case. The two polling stations under reference are cases of peculiar nature. The tribunal and the High Court have rightly reached the conclusion, on the basis of evidence on record read in the overall context based on the peculiar ratio of polled votes, that Raja Abdul Qayyum, who was the beneficiary was responsible for the extra-ordinary situation. We uphold this view. We may also observe this polling is a stigma on the whole election system. Polling of more votes is in our view a gross violation of the provision of the Ordinance and the Rules and shows the prevalence of extensive corrupt and illegal practices at the two polling stations under reference. It is clear that gross violation of law has been committed at these polling stations. The scheme of the Ordinance and the Rules made thereunder shows voters have to pass through a rigid procedure.
27. We need not to go into the details of the procedure because the provisions about it are well known.
28. It cannot be imagined that a single vote more than the total can be polled. However, was responsible for this state of affairs, it must be said that such demonstration of high handedness and illegalities tend to erode the confidence of the people from electoral roll system on which our democratic polity is based. We cannot visualized that this could happen without participation of the concerned polling staff. Whether the Presiding Officer and other staff members were forced into this situation or they did it in their own free well makes little difference because in both the cases the result is that there was grass violation of law and a classic case of corrupt and illegal practices have come to light. No other conclusion is possible except to declare the polling at these stations was violative of law and thus invalid."
29. (Under lining is ours)
30. ' The Chief Election Commissioner of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is bound to conduct the polling honestly, fairly and justly and for that purpose he has been given vast powers under section 24 subsection (2) read with sections 92 and 92-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970. We are of the view that the learned Chief Election Commissioner has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him for fair and just polling by ordering the re- polling on the above mentioned polling stations. His powers are not dependent upon the report of the Returning Officer that is why he has vested with suo motu jurisdiction.
31. ' The contention of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Janjua, that the Returning Officer has not reported for re- election in respect of polling station No,72, rather it is shown by him that on this polling station Ch. Muhammad Aziz has obtained 103 votes and Faisal Mumtaz Rathore his rival candidate obtained 92 votes hence, re-election order to the extent of this polling was illegal, is devoid of any force and stands belied from the record produce before us by Mir Abdul Latif, the learned advocate for the Election Commissioner. It is reported by the Returning Officer that poling was stopped on this polling station and he has recommended for re-polling. The letter of the Returning Officer dated 27-6-2011 addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner whereby it is proposed that at Polling Station No,72 he has postponed the election. Another letter dated 27-6-2011 further states and supports the fact that polling on Polling Station No,72, Primary School Noorpur (male and female), and Polling Station No,61 Halam Shamali was postponed by the Returning Officer under section 24 subsection (2) of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, therefore, it cannot be said that the. Chief Election Commissioner has included the aforesaid polling station at his own without there being any material before him.
32. ' The contention of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Janjua, that as the result has been verified on an application of the agent of Faisal Mumtaz Rathore by Returning.Officer, therefore, lie may be declared as returned candidate from the aforesaid constituency is also devoid of any force. As stated in the earlier part of the' judgment that the result has to be prepared in prescribed manner on the prescribed forms under the rules and only that result can be issued by the Returning Officer for consolidation of the result under section 36 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 because the consolidation of the result shall commence when the Presiding Officers shall submit the Returning Officer the report/statement of the count and the ballot paper count/prepared by him together with such other record as the Commissioner may direct him. Under subsection (15) of section 35 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, if no such statement is available before the Returning Officer then the question of official counting or preparation of the official result does not arise.
33. The upshot of the above is that maintaining the order of the learned Chief Election Commissioner for re-polling on the polling stations mentioned in the notification we dismiss both the petitions to that extent, however, petition filed by Ch. Muhammad Aziz is partly accepted and the polling as well as result thereof at Polling Stations Nos.162,-163,105, 85 and 86 are hereby declared as violative of the Ordinance and rules made thereunder. The Chief Election Commissioner is directed to order for re-polling on these polling stations in accordance with the rules. The polling on these polling stations shall be held on the same date, which is fixed for the other polling stations vide notification dated 1-7-2011.