1. MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH (ELECTION TRIBUNAL).--- Through present application under section 114 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1976) read with Order XLVII, Rule l, of Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner, whereby sought review of order dated 19-12-2013, passed on application for recounting of ballot-papers.
2. 2.Respondent No.1 contested this application by filing counter-affidavit and rebutted the objections.
3. 3.Mr. Hyder Imam Rizvi, Advocate, for the petitioner has argued that in documents viz Forms XIV, XV and XVI several discrepancies are available but Tribunal has not considered the same and it was fit case for review of order dated 19-12-2013. He has .further argued that in view of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, an authority which can pass an order is entitled to vary, amend, add are rescind that order. He also stressed that right to claim review of an order is substantive right and not mere a matter of procedure, besides the power of review under section 114, C.P.C. may be exercised by the Election Tribunal under original jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on following authorities.
(1) PLD 1969 Supreme Court 65, (2) PLD 1960 Supreme Court 1, (3) 1996 SCMR 426, (4) PLD 1997 Supreme Court 865, (5) PLD 1975 Supreme Court 318, (6) PLD 1992 Supreme Court 207, (7) 2012 SCMR 1235 (8) PLD 2007 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 92, (9) 1983 CLC 3031 (Lahore), (10) 1983 CLC 2965 (Lahore), (11) PLD 2006 Lahore 611, (12) 2009 CLC 1.
4. 4.Mr. Ansari Abdul Latif Advocate for the respondent No.1 argued that no Court or Tribunal has inherent powers to review its orders or decree, unless powers of review are expressively conferred.
5. He has further added that right of review is a substantive and has not been conferred by Act, 1976.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further pointed out that inherent powers cannot be exercised, because powers of review are not available with the Election Tribunal and cannot reopen and re-enter into matter. As such present application for review of order of this Tribunal is without any merits and liable to be dismissed. Respondents' side relied upon following authorities:- --
(1) PLD 1986 Supreme Court 542, (2) PLD 1981 Supreme Court 94, (3) 1999 SCMR 284, (4) 1996 SCMR 426, (5) 2007 CLC 610 (Election Tribunal Punjab), (6) 2011 CLC 178 (Lahore), (7) 2012 CLC 185 (Peshawar).
7. 5.I have considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.
8. 6.The scope of review even if find place in statute has very limited scope, because it is neither an appeal nor revision, matter decided and elaborated with discussion, thereon cannot be re- considered, on the contrary it will amount to re-open the matter, reliance is placed on PLD 1986 Supreme Court 542, wherein it was observed:--- "The contention that the Election Tribunal, was possessed of the power of review on the strength of section 64, of the Act, is untenable because the power of review is possessed and exercised not as a necessary adjunct of the power to try a cause but as an exception to the principle of finality firmly embedded in judicial system."
9. "Power of review was held not to be included in the power to entertain and dispose of appeal."
10. 7.This authority is fully applicable in present case as it pertains to Election Tribunal and also about re-counting of votes. Further this case-law laid down with reference to section 64 of Act, 1976, is clear that power of review not included in power to entertain, disposed of appeal and that Election Tribunal's powers under section 64 of the Act, 1976 are untenable because power of review is an exception to the principle of finality and that power of review cannot be exercised as an appeal and there is no occasion in the present circumstances to get order reviewed.
11. 8.The authorities relied upon by the respondents' side are distinguishable from the circumstances and facts of this matter.
12. 9.In view of above discussion the review being a substantive right and not have matter of procedure, this Tribunal is not empowered and competent to review its own order. It is worth- mentioning that parties had notice of proceedings and were provided opportunity of hearing and all the grounds were taken into consideration and thus power of review even if provided in statute does not mean re-hearing of the matter which has attained the finality to the extent of order under review.
13. 10.In view of above discussion present application find no merit and stand dismissed.
14. 11.Announced in the open court on this 19th day of April, 2014.