' SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN, J.---Government of Pakistan through Election Commission of Pakistan issued notification for holding of General Election in the country on 18-2-2008 for the National Assembly as also for the Provincial Assemblies. MRs, Ashifa Riaz Fatyana, petitioner and MRs, Nazia Raheel, respondent No,1 along with respondents Nos. 2 to 10 contested election for the seat of Member of Provincial Assembly from P.P. 88 Toba Tek Singh-V. As per the result published in the Official Gazette by the Election Commission of Pakistan through Notification No, F.2(4)/2008-Cord, dated 1-3-2008 MRs, Nazia Raheel; respondent No,1 was declared returned candidate for the said seat.
2. Being aggrieved of the said result, the petitioner challenged the same before this Tribunal on the ground that respondent No,1 deployed all kinds of corrupt and illegal practices and thus was illegally declared as a returned candidate. The petitioner prayed to declare the election of respondent No,1 void ab initio and to declare the petitioner as returned candidate from the said constituency. Notices were issued to the respondents through all modes of service. However, only respondents Nos. 1 and 7 came forward to contest the petition and filed written statements. The other respondents were proceeded against ex parte. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:--
(1) Whether respondent No,1 succeeded in the election by deploying corrupt and illegal practices?
OPP.
(2) Whether 2329 votes have been rejected by the Presiding Officers of the Constituency of valid considerations? OPP.
(3) Whether Chaks Nos. 733 GB, 734 GB, 742 GB and Chak Sher Singh formed part of PP. 88 and their residents were wrongly made to vote for candidates of PP. 89? If so, its effect? OPP.
(4) Whether the election petition merits outright acceptance in view of the evasive denial of respondent No,1? OPP.
(5) Whether the address of respondent No,1 is incorrect and the election petition is liable to dismissal on this sole ground? OPP.
(6) Whether the election petition is incompetent on account of the preliminary objections taken in the written reply of respondent No,1? OPP.
(7) Relief.
' Initially respondent No, 7 had also been proceeded against ex parte but later on his application he was allowed to contest the petition and on 11-3-2009 following additional issues were also framed:- -
(8) Whether the petitioner has not come with clean hands, thus he is not entitled to any relief?
OPD(7).
(9) Whether the petition has been filed with mala fide intention? OPD (7).
(10) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the petition? OPD (7).
(11) Whether in view of the provisions of section 152(2) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001, the instant petition is not maintainable? OPD(7).
(12) Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form as the requirement provided in Rules Nos. 65 and 66 of Punjab Local Govt. Election Rules 2005 has not been complied with? OPD (7).
(13) Whether the petition is not maintainable as no allegation of corrupt and illegal practice had been specifically mentioned as required under Rule 67 of the Punjab Local Govt Ordinance 2005?
OPD(7).
(14) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Rule 72 of the Punjab Local Govt.
Election Rules 2005 as requirements of sections 66 to 70 have not been complied with? OPD (7).
3. The parties led evidence to prove their respective issues.
4. Mr. Murid Hussain, appeared as P.W.1 and stated that he was the Returning Officer of PP.88 in the General Election of 2008 which was conducted on 18-2-2008. He deposed that he received all results from the presiding officers on 18-2-2008 and compiled it on the same day. He intimated to the candidates that consolidation of result shall be made on 20-2-2008 on which date after compiling the result it was announced and respondent No,1 was declared returned candidate for PP 88. He also claimed that he undertook the exercise of re-count of rejected votes on 20-2-2008 on the request of the candidates but did not complete the same as the parties had consented to the same. He also deposed that he wrote letter (Exh.PW.1/2) to the Election Commission on 2-2- 2008 regarding change in the constituencies of PP. 88 and PP.89 but the Election Commission replied that as the election schedule was announced so it was not in a position to change the constituency. The petitioner entered witness box as P.W.2 and deposed that on the election day all the polling staff was changed without her knowledge; that since the polling staff was interested, they provided stamps to the voters who were illiterate villagers with the wrong side of stamp duly inked and for that they had been pasting wrong side of the stamp on the ballot papers which resulted into rejection of votes. She further stated that she filed an application before the presiding officer for recounting of the rejected votes and on the said application recounting of the rejected votes was started but later on it came to her knowledge that the same had been stopped because of the pressure of the remaining candidates. In order to strengthen her assertion about corrupt practices, she deposed that PP 88 consisted of Kamalia Kanoongoi and Jhakhar Kanoongoi whereas PP 89 consisted of Pir Mehal Town Kanoongoi, Sandhilianwali Kanoongoi and Bhoosi Kanoongoi. She claimed that Chak Nos. 733, 734 and 742 including Chak Sher Singh, Plots Nos. 57/3 and 57/4 were detached from Bhoosi Kanoongoi and attached to Jhakhar Kanoongoi according to the delimitation of constituencies and thereby the residents of the Chaks which were de-notified were entitled to vote in PP 88 but they were forced to vote in PP 89. She claimed that she filed an application before the Returning Officer but no action was taken. Like wise Polling Stations 57 and 58 were changed from U.C. Nos. 79 to 78 but she was not informed and when the voters went there to cast votes the polling stations were locked, therefore, they could not cast their votes. She further deposed that she came to know that in some polling stations the polling agents were ordered to leave the polling stations and in some ballot papers signatures of the presiding officers were not obtained and they were not stamped. She further claimed that her valid ballot papers were rejected and invalid papers were counted in favour of respondent No,1. The petitioner also produced Ch. Abdul Rasheed Gujjar, as P.W. 3 who deposed that he was Nazim of Union Council No, 79 Kamalia wherein Polling Stations Nos. 57 and 58 were located and that on the election day a large number of voters kept on approaching him to state that polling stations Nos. 57 and 58 were not available at the declared location. The petitioner also produced Muhammad Aslam as P.W. 4 who deposed that he was polling agent of the petitioner at polling station No,
116. The witness also deposed that after the polling was over, the presiding officer concerned started acting in a very biased manner and a large number of valid votes of petitioner were deliberately rejected without any valid reasons whereas invalid votes of respondent No,1 were considered valid and added to her vote count. P.W. 5 Nawab Din, P.W. 6 Pir Wajid Hussain and P.W. 7 Ahsan Tahir, also deposed in the same line as P.W.
4.
5. In rebuttal respondent No,1 entered witness box as P.W.1 to claim that the election was held in an peaceful atmosphere; that it was a fair and transparent election and in the whole election no untoward incident took place; that the votes were counted in presence of agents of different candidates by the presiding officers and after completing the results sent the same to the Returning Officer. She also claimed that on 20th of February, 2008 the Returning Officer called all the candidates in his office for consolidation of the result and she along with other candidates appeared in the office of the Returning Officer and were also duly marked present. She also claimed that on the request of the petitioner the rejected votes were counted and thereafter the result was announced by the Returning Officer. She also claimed that the petitioner intentionally mentioned incorrect address of the respondent on the instant petition so that the respondent could not pursue the case. She also produced Sh. Hameed Ahmad, R.W. 2 who corroborated the stance of the respondent that the election was conducted fairly and there was no report of any rigging. He also disclosed that from the same Constituency Mr. Riaz Fatyana, husband of the petitioner contested election for the seat of M.N.A. And won the election. He further disclosed that one Haider Zaman filed an election petition against Mr. Riaz Fatyana in which the said Mr. Fatayana claimed that the election was conducted absolutely fair and impartial. Respondent No, 7 also entered the witness box as R.W. 4 and submitted that he was also one of the candidates in the general election 2008 for the seat of PP 88. He claimed that throughout the day the election was conducted peacefully and after close of polling the presiding officers counted the votes in presence of agents of the candidates. He also disclosed that the Returning Officer called all the candidates of PP 88 for 20-2-2008 and on the said date in his presence and in presence of other candidates rejected votes were counted by the Returning Officer. He also claimed that after the counting he and the election agent of the petitioner signed the attendance sheet. He also disclosed that postal votes were counted regarding PP 88 and NA 94 by the Returning Officer in presence of the candidates and he obtained signatures of all those present and Mr. Riaz Fatyana signed the same on behalf of his wife/petitioner. The witness also produced copy of the attendance sheet as Ex.R.7/1. Apart from oral evidence the parties also placed on record documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No,1 procured her election by using all kinds of corrupt and illegal practices in collusion with the election staff. He contended that the polling staff of many Polling Stations was got changed by the respondent just before the election day with the collusion of Returning Officer in order to fulfil their design of rigging. In support of his contention he has argued that the polling staff provided ballot papers to the voters which were not duly sealed or signed by the presiding officer; that they provided stamps inked with wrong side to the illiterate villagers so that they may not cast their votes in favour of the petitioner and their votes may be spoiled; that behaviour of the election staff/presiding officers was biased against the polling agents of the petitioner; that at some polling stations the polling agents of the petitioner were ousted by the presiding officers and ballot boxes were not opened in their presence and thereby the petitioner was deprived to be represented at the time of process of counting; that the petitioner was not duly informed about consolidation proceedings and all the proceedings had been conducted without informing the petitioner; that valid votes of the petitioner were rejected and invalid votes of respondent No, 1 were counted in her favour, and the petitioner made application for re-count of the rejected votes but the same exercise was not done although it was mandatory for the Returning Officer under section 39(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 to re-count the rejected votes and that all these show that the election staff was in league with respondent No, 1 . Learned counsel further contended that according to the delimitation of the constituencies, voters of certain chaks were to vote for PP 88 but they were not allowed to cast their votes in PP 88 and instead they were forced to vote in PP 89. Likewise polling stations Nos.57 and 58 were changed from U.C. Nos. 79 to U.C. 78 without information of the petitioner and when the voters went there to cast votes the polling stations were locked, therefore, they could not cast their votes.
According to the learned counsel all this had happened because of the corrupt practices adopted by respondent No,1 in connivance with the Returning Officer. It was further argued that in spite of the application of the petitioner to the effect recount was not done and that the at the time of alleged re-counting the petitioner or her agents were not present; that the election was not conducted strictly in accordance with law and the rules governing the subject and the election staff was in league with respondent No,1 as such the election is liable to be declared void.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has argued that the election was conducted in a cordial atmosphere in presence of parties which were duly represented by their agents at the polling stations and no untoward incident took place throughout the day of election; that no complaint of rigging or corrupt practice was made till the time of announcement of result and that the said allegation is an after thought; that the government had made delimitation of constituencies in the year 2007 and that too during the period when the petitioner herself was part of government but she did not pursue the matter for correction in the electoral roll etc. If any, therefore, the respondent cannot be blamed for the same; that the consolidation proceedings were conducted in presence of all parties/their representatives and even election agent of the petitioner was present during the consolidation who was duly marked present and he put his signatures on the attendance sheet; that the husband of petitioner, namely, Riaz Fatyana also contested election for the Seat of National Assembly from the said constituency and he was also election agent of the petitioner and he remained associated with the consolidation proceedings and in a petition against him he himself had claimed that the election was conducted fairly and without any rigging and as such the petition was liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
9. Main thrust of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent won the election by using illegal and corrupt practices; that valid votes of the petitioner had been rejected by the presiding officers and that electoral roll had not been amended/corrected as per the detachment of certain chaks from one Qanungoi in PP. 89 to another Qanungoi in PP.
88. Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 relate to this contention. The petitioner pleaded-that respondent No,1 won the election on the basis of her massive illegal and corrupt practices. Section 55(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 provides that where a person alleges illegal and corrupt practices against any one then he has to provide full particulars of said corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act which he alleges to have taken place and also to mention the name of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of the commission of such practice or act. Burden to prove these issues heavily lay on the petitioner to establish allegation of illegal and corrupt practices of respondent No,1 beyond shadow of doubt giving their full particulaRs, In order to prove these issues the petitioner entered the witness box as P.W. 2 and deposed that on the election day all the polling staff was changed without her knowledge and that since the polling staff was interested, they provided stamps to the voters who were illiterate villagers with the wrong side of stamp duly inked and for that they had been pasting wrong side of the stamp on the ballot papers which resulted into rejection of votes. In proof of her assertion she did not produce any list of staff who had been posted before election or the staff who was deputed a day before the election. The petitioner also did not show as to how and why the election staff was interested. She also did not place on record any document to show that the competent authority/Returning Officer had been complained about this illegality. She admitted in cross-examination that she did not herself observe the fact of pasting wrong side of stamps and was only informed by her agents. Although the petitioner claimed that her voters who were illiterate rustic people were provided stamps inked with wrong side which they pasted on the ballot papers resulting in rejection of her valid ballot papers but she did not produce any voter in support of her assertion and thus her mere assertions which are based on hearsay cannot be given any weight.
The Returning Officer also submitted that husband of the petitioner, namely, Riaz Fatyana who was also a candidate for the seat of M.N.A. In N.A. 94 was also acting as agent of the present petitioner.
He remained associated during the process of election and even during consolidation proceedings and did not raise any objection. The witness further clarified that process of consolidation of result was completed in presence of the parties and nobody raised any objection and the consolidation ended in a smooth atmosphere. The husband of the petitioner was a candidate for the seat of National Assembly from the same constituency. He was also election agent of the petitioner and remained active during the election. He won the seat of National Assembly from the same constituency and claimed that the election was conducted fairly and smoothly. He did not complain about any illegal or corrupt practice on behalf of the respondent or the election staff nor has he been produced by the petitioner in witness box in support of her claim. He remained present even at the time of consolidation and was duly marked present. Apart from him, another election agent of the petitioner, namely Ch. Munir Ahmad was also present which shows that the petitioner was duly represented at the time of consolidation. The petitioner also produced Muhammad Aslam as P.W. 4 who deposed that he was polling agent of the petitioner at polling station No,
116. The witness also deposed that after the polling was over, the presiding officer concerned started acting in a very biased manner and a large number of valid votes of petitioner were deliberately rejected without any valid reasons whereas invalid votes of respondent No,1 were considered valid and added to her vote count. He, however, admitted during cross-examination that he did not make any complaint in writing to the Presiding Officer. P.W. 5 Nawab Din, P.W, 6 Pir Wajid Hussain and P.W.
7 Ahsan Tahir, also deposed in the same line as P.W.4. However, none of these witnesses claimed that they had filed written objection before the presiding officer to this effect. The general and sweeping allegations of corrupt and illegal practice which are not corroborated by other pieces of evidence are nothing but bald and vague assertions which cannot be given any weight. The petitioner neither pointed out any illegal or corrupt practice on the part of respondent No,1 nor pointed any place or time where any alleged corrupt act took place. Therefore, in my view the petitioner has miserably failed to prove issue No, 1 and the same is decided against her and in favour of respondent No, 1.
10. The petitioner stated that she filed an application before the presiding officer for recounting of the ballot papers and on the said application recounting of the rejected votes was started but later on it came to her knowledge that the same had been stopped because of the pressure of the remaining candidates. Murid Hussain, (P.W.1) stated that he was the Returning Officer for the constituencies of N.A. 94, PP. 88 and PP.89 in the election in question. He admitted that the petitioner filed an application (P.W.1/1) before him for recount of ballot papeRs, He stated that he dismissed the said application. He, however, clarified that he undertook the exercise of recount of rejected votes of some of the polling stations but did not examine all the rejected votes of all the polling stations on the said date as it had been consented by the candidates. It has not come on record that any of the ballot papers rejected by the presiding officers had been found valid by the Returning Officer during examination and was counted in favour of the petitioner. Thus it cannot be said that any valid vote of the petitioner had been rejected by the presiding officer or that the same had not been deliberately counted in favour of the petitioner.
11. I have also gone through the application (Exh.P.W.1/1) of the petitioner. It carries a prayer of recount all ballot papeRs, Section 39(6) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 prescribes that the Returning Officer may recount the ballot papers upon the request of, or challenge in writing by or on behalf of any contesting candidate if he is satisfied that the request or the challenge is reasonable. Although the petitioner submitted application (Exh.P.W.1/1) for re-count of the entire votes but she did not justify her claim with cogent reasons and only alleged that since a lot of valid votes of the petitioner had wrongly been rejected and the presiding officers had committed irregularities, hence recounting was necessary. The Returning Officer did not feel satisfied with the reasoning advanced by the petitioner and as such he turned down request a the petitioner for recount of the entire votes. If the petitioner wanted to have the entire votes recounted by the Returning Officer she must have satisfied with cogent reasons that her request was reasonable.
Vague allegations not containing adequate statement of material facts cannot be considered as grounds for recounting which cannot be granted as a matter of right. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to establish that the presiding officers had not counted the votes correctly or that double votes had been counted or even that valid votes of the petitioner had been rejected.
Therefore, the Returning Officer had no option but to dismiss the same and he rightly did so. Issue No, 2 is also decided against the petitioner.
12. The petitioner also claimed that Chak Nos. 733, 734 and 742 including Chak Sher Singh, Plots No, 57/3 and 57/4 were detached from Bhoosi Kanoongoi of PP 89 and attached to Jhakhar Kanoongoi of PP 88 according to the delimitation of constituencies and thereby the residents of the Chaks which were de-notified were entitled to vote in PP 88 but they were forced to vote in PP 89. She claimed that she filed an application before the Returning 'Officer but no action was taken. P.W. 1 stated that the petitioner had submitted application to this effect upon which he wrote a letter to the Provincial Election Commissioner but the said office replied that since the election schedule was announced so the election commission was not in a position to change the constituency.
Delimitation of the constituencies is made under the Delimitation of Constituencies Act, 1974. Under Section 3 of the said Act the Election Commission has the power to delimit territorial constituencies for the elections in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the said Act. Exercising powers under subsection (3) of section 10 of the said Act, the Election Commission of Pakistan vide Notification No,F.10(116)/220-Cord. Published in the Gazette of Pakistan dated 28-6-2002 issued final list of the constituencies for the Province of Punjab according to which PP. 88 T. T. Singh-V consisted of Kamalia Municipal Committee, Kamalia Qanungoi and Jakkar Qanungoi whereas PP. 89 T.T.Singh-VI consisted of Pir Mahal Town Committee, Pir Mahal Qanungoi, Bhusi Qanungoi and Sandhilian Qanungoi. The Governor of Punjab vide Notification No, 3333-2007/ G-131/176-DIR(R&G) dated 27-4-2007 in the Revenue Department detached Patwar Circle 733/GB consisting of revenue estates of Chak 733/GB, 734/GB and 742/GB and Patwar Circle New Darsana consisting of Chak Sher Sing, Plot No, 57/3 and Plot No, 57/4 from Bhusi Qanungoi and attached with Jakhar Qanungoi.
List of electoral is prepared under The Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. As per Section 6 of this Act a Registration Officer appointed under section 5 by the Chief Election Commissioner is required to prepare preliminary electoral roll by revising the existing electoral rolls inter alia including therein the name of every person entitled to be enrolled as a voter in an electoral area or deleting therefrom the names of every person who is not entitled to be enrolled as a voter in any electoral area under this Act and to publish the same inviting claims and objections and applications for corrections, if any. Under section 10 of the Act every claim for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll and every objection to or application for correction of any entry has to be made to the Revising Authority within a period of twenty one days from the date of the publication of the preliminary electoral rolls. Under Section 11 a person may apply for transfer of his name from the electoral roll of one electoral area to the electoral roll of another by filing an objection to the inclusion of his name in the roll in which it has been included or a claim for the inclusion of his name in the other. Under Section 12 any claim or objection or application for correction not made within the period specified in section 10 or in the prescribed manner shall be rejected. Under Section 16 the Registration Officer after making additions, deletions, modifications or corrections, if any, shall publish the final electoral roll for each electoral area. Under section 17 an electoral roll is to be revised and corrected annually. It is further provided that if, for any reason, the electoral roll for any electoral area is not revised, the validity or continued operation of the electoral roll shall not thereby be affected. Apart from the above prescribed procedure for annual revision of electoral roll, a Registration Officer is empowered under section 18 to enroll a person at any time who is entitled to be enrolled on that roll and any person may apply to the Registration Officer for the correction of any entry in an electoral roll for the time being in force. However, under section 20 it has been provided that once the constituency has been called upon to elect its representative no revision or correction of any electoral roll for an electoral area which forms part of such constituency shall be made. The petitioner while under cross-examination admitted that the Qanungois in question were changed in the year 2007. She also admitted that she remained part of the Government till announcement of the election. However, she evasively did not mention the date on which she made application for correction of electoral roll. She never said that she made any such kind of application before the Registration Officer under sections 6/8 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 for correction of the electoral roll. Therefore, her application for the purpose filed before the Returning Officer and forwarded by him to the Election Commission had rightly been rejected under section 20 of the said Act. To my mind the said objection cannot be connected to respondent No,1 as it was for the Election Commission to prepare the electoral roll for conduct of election and the petitioner should have applied in time for addition/correction of the electoral roll. Therefore issue No, 3 is also decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
13. So far as contention of the petitioner regarding change of Polling Stations 57 and 58 from U.C.
No, 79 to U.C. 78 is concerned the petitioner admitted during cross-examination that polling stations Nos. 57 and 58 were established in Vocational Institute Noor Shah Road. She, however, claimed that the said polling stations were not there in Noor Shah Road and had been shifted to U.C. 78 with some other polling station. In support of her claim, she produced Ch. Abdul Rasheed P.W. 3 who stated that he had been Nazim of Union Council No,
79. The witness conceded during cross-examination that two polling stations Nos.57 and 58 had been established in the Vocational Institution. He was candid enough to admit, that he had visited the said polling stations which were at Govt. Vocational Institute at 4-30 p.m. Thus the claim of the petitioner is rebutted by her own witness. Furthermore the Returning Officer who was petitioner's witness did not support this claim of the petitioner. On the other hand the respondent produced Sh. Hameed Ahmad R.W. 2 who stated that he had been Nazim of Union Council No,78 and that Polling Stations Nos. 57 and 58 were established in the Govt. Vocational Training Institute Kamalia and he visited the polling stations.
Thus the contention of the petitioner in absence of any documentary evidence cannot be given much weight.
14. It may be noted that the stance of the petitioner is mainly based on hearsay as she did not depose about anything which she had personally observed, therefore, such a hearsay cannot be called the evidence and cannot be given any weight.
15. So far as the issue regarding giving wrong address of respondent No,1 is concerned the same has not been seriously contested. Moreover the respondent has been appearing in this case and duly represented and even in her affidavit attached with her written reply she herself mentioned the same address, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner mentioned wrong address of the said respondent. Issue No,5 is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner.
16. It may also be mentioned here that respondent No, 7 also submitted his written reply and issues Nos. 8 to 14 were framed which were to be proved by the said respondent. He entered witness box as R.W.
4. He deposed in line with the case of respondent No,1. Therefore, no independent finding on the issues to be proved by him is needed as he did not lead evidence in support of issues which were to be proved by him.
17. There is another legal aspect of the matter. Section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 deals with the contents of an election petition. As per subsection (3) to this section every election petition and every schedule or annexure to that petition is required to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Order VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. Deals with the verification of pleadings. For better appreciation, I would like to reproduce the said provision which is as under:-- "15. Verification of pleadings.- (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one of the parties to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed."
' I would also like to reproduce the verification made by the election petitioner on the foot of the present election petition for better appreciation: "VERIFICATION: ' Verified on oath at Islamabad this 11th day of April, 2008 that the contents of the above election petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
' A cursory glance over the provision of law quoted above and the verification of the election petition reproduced above would show that by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be in accordance with the prescribed manner inasmuch the verification on the foot of election petition does not bifurcate the paragraphs which the petitioner verifies of his own knowledge and which are the paragraphs which she verifies upon information received and believed to be true. Section 63 of the Act lays down that if the provisions of section 55 ibid have not been complied with, the election petition shall be dismissed. This penal provision of law makes the compliance of section 55 of the Act mandatory failing which penal consequences have to follow. The question is as to whether defective verification is fatal to the petitioner's case or deficiency in the verification can be rectified. To my mind the provisions of law which entail penal consequences are mandatory in nature and the lacunae entailing penal consequences of these mandatory provisions cannot be allowed to be filled. Although verification of a plaint in a suit filed under the C.P.C. Is the same as in the election petition, yet there is great difference between the two. Under the C.P.C. No penal provision is prescribed for non-compliance of Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C. As such the same can be considered as directory in nature whereas non compliance of the provisions of section 55(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 entail penal consequences in terms of section 63(a) ibid, hence the same are mandatory and must be fulfilled exactly. If a law require a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in the same manner, otherwise the command of the Legislature is not obeyed. Therefore, verification without reference to the numbered paragraphs was fatal and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik v. Ghulam Sarwar Khan and 6 others (2004 CLC 914). It has been held by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another (PLD 2007 SC 362) that notwithstanding the fact that the defect has been pointed out by the respondent or not, the court is always empowered to ensure that the law under which proceedings have been initiated before it stands complied with fully particularly in the cases where non-compliance of mandatory provision prescribes a penalty.
18. In view of what has been noticed and discussed above, looking at from whatever angle I, find that the petitioner has failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. This petition, therefore, fails and is consequently dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to cost.