The result of General Elections-2013 from constituency No, NA-103, Hafizabad-II declared by the Returning Officer was not approved by the Election Commission of Pakistan and was set aside on the ground that the process or election had been rigged at a large scale. The Election Commission of Pakistan ordered bye-election from the said constituency, which was conducted by the Returning Officer and contested by Ch. Sikandar Nawaz Bhatti, petitioner (for short, the petitioner'), Mian Shahid Hussain Bhatti, Respondent No, 1/returned candidate (for short, `the returned candidata') and Ch. Shaukat Ali Bhatti, Respondent No, 3/ runner up (for short, the runner up') besides Respondents No, 2, 4, 5 and 6. On close of the poll for the bye-election, the Returning Officer prepared consolidated statement of the results of the count on the basis of statements of the count on form XIV submitted by the Presiding Officers, according to which the petitioner, the returned candidate and the runner up secured votes as under:-- {{TABLE}} Sr. # Name of the Candidate Votes Secured Ch. Sikandar Nawaz Bhatti, petitioner 60 Mian Shahid Hussain Bhatti, returned candidate 78113 Ch. Shaukat Ali Bhatti, runner up 67072 {{TABLE}} It so happened that the runner up, who secured 67072 votes did not opt to challenge election of the returned candidate. Ch. Sikandar Nawaz Bhatti, petitioner, who could secure only sixty (60) votes out of 259281 registered votes of the constituency filed election Petition No, 07 of 2013 and levelled a number of allegations against process of the election. On contest being put, the returned candidate dismissed all the allegations set up in the election petition with the plea that the election, which ended in his favour was conducted honestly in a transparent manner. The runner up, who did not file election petition, attempted to assume the role of petitioner through his written statement, but unsuccessfully as he was not allowed by the Tribunal to challenge the election without filing an election petition. In this way, the petitioner, who secured sixty (60) votes only remained in field.
2. Keeping in view the counter claims, the following issues were framed:--
(i) Whether the petitioner has failed to disclose specific and definite instances of corrupt and illegal practice, if so, its effect? OPR 1.
(ii) Whether the Election petition has been drawn-up contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 55 read with Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, if so, its effect? OPR 1.
(iii)Whether the irregularities/illegalities/corrupt practices/ mal-practices set up in the Election petition, if proved and established with evidence, provide a legal basis to declare the Election in question void as a whole? OPP.
(iv)Relief? OP parties.
3. At trial, Ch. Sikandar Nawaz Bhatti, petitioner (PW-5) entered the witness box and owned his affidavit Ex.PW-5/A to the effect that the election had been rigged. He got examined Muhammad Ijaz (PW-1), Shakeel Ahmed (PW-2), Qasim Ali (PW-3) and Asad Mahmood (PW-4), who adopted the contents of their affidavits already annexed with the election petition.
4. On the other hand, the returned candidate (RW-1) denied and dismissed each and every allegation set up in the election petition and supported by the petitioner and his witnesses at trial by saying that the election had been conducted strictly in accordance with law in a transparent manner.
5. The petitioner, who could secure only sixty (60) votes, assailed the election of returned candidate possessed with 78113 votes on the basis of a number of allegations.
6. Before adverting to the allegations for the reanalysis, it would be advantageous to reproduce below Section 55 of the ROPA, 1976 (for short, the Act, 1976), which reads as under:--
55. Contents of petition.--(1) Every election petition shall contain-- (a)A precise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b)full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed, including as full a statement as possible of the names 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; Now, I take up each allegation separately in the light of the evidence and the provisions of Section 55 ibid. The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate, his election agents and supporters offered rewards and gratification to win the favour of electors ' of the constituency. It is nowhere mentioned as to when, where and to whom the returned candidate paid gratification or in what mode and manner he rewarded the electors.
7. The petitioner made another allegation that votes had been cast through impersonation. It is nowhere mentioned as to who impersonated the voters or at what polling station the voting through impersonation had been carried out. The allegation appears to be general and meaningless.
8. The petitioner further alleged that the returned candidate and his election agents./ supporters extended threats and used force and violence against the electors. The names and particulars of the voters, ho had allegedly been subjected to force and violence, have not been furnished by the petitioner. Similarly, the location, name and number of polling stations where the voters were threatened and forced to cast vote in favour of the returned candidate do not find mentioned in the petition. The vague and general allegation is not receiving support from any cogent piece of evidence.
9. The petitioner claimed that the voters were restrained from exercising their right of vote in favour of the petitioner. The election petition does not tell as to when and where the voters were restrained. Similarly, the polling stations have not been mentioned where the voters of the petitioner were forbidden to vote for him. The voters, who were allegedly restrained to cast their vote were neither named nor examined at trial.
10. The petitioner complained that electors of the constituency had been transported to the polling stations by the returned candidate. No legal and convincing evidence is available on the file in this regard.
11. The petitioner alleged that with the active support of government servants, the returned candidate hampered the process of election. Identity of the government servants, who sided with the returned candidate has not been disclosed. Likewise the record dots not tell as to how and in what manner the unknown government servants hampered the process of election.
12.The allegation that female voters were not allowed to cast vote at Polling Station No, 78 is offensive to the record. It is evident from the con olidated statement of the count that 439 votes had been polled at the said polling station.
13.The allegation against the members of polling staff, the Returning Officer, the police officials and the government functionaries that they all joined hands with the returned candidate and rigged the, election is not based any cogent and convincing evidence.
14. In fact, the petitioner's case is based on his self-assertion. Here I must say that self-assertion cannot be the substitute of legal evidence nor the same provide a legal basis to pass legal order.
At the cost of repetition, I would say that the petitioner obtained only sixty (60) votes and I see no valid reason to through away 78113 votes of the returned candidate on the basis of self-assertion of the petitioner, particularly when the runner up securing 67072 votes did not challenge the election.
Furthermore, the self-assertion of the petitioner is not receiving support from any legal evidence or attending circumstances.
15.The affidavits of PWs 1 to 4 examined by the petitioner are not worthy of credence for multiple reasons. Firstly, Paragraphs No, 7 to 12 of the affidavits have not been signed and attested by the deponents / PWs. Only the first page of the affidavit was signed and thumb marked. It appears that the scribe of the affidavits obtained thumb impressions and signatures of the deponents in advance on blank stamp papers and then drew up affidavits by using an additional sheet for each affidavit in absence of the PWs and that is why last page of all the affidavits containing Paragraphs No, 7 to 12 remained unsigned. Secondly, affidavits, Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-4/A are verbatim copy of each other. How can I believe that four PWs got drafted their affidavits with word to word same contents. Such type of affidavits cannot be treated as legal piece of evidence.
16.The above said vague and general allegations do not spell out as to how the election results in favour of the returned candidate were materially affected because the petitioner completely and miserably failed to bring on record the material facts as contemplated in Section 55 of the Act, 1976.
17. This is an established principle of law that success of a winning candidate should not be lightly interfered with and the petitioner seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of Section 55 ibid. The election petition in hand is a bundle of vague, general and meaningless allegations, which do not create cause of action in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was required to plead material facts and then prove them at trial beyond any shadow of doubt. The petitioner not only failed to set up material facts in the election petition but also could not adduce legal, cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the allegations set up in the election petition without any basis.
18.When confronted with the aforesaid state of record, apparently fatal to the cause of petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the statement on oath of the petitioner and that of his four witnesses provided a legal basis to declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. I could not persuade myself to attach any importance to the argument. The election dispute cannot be treated at par with land dispute. The election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity. These are purel/statutory proceedings unknown to the common law. The special law, which governs the trial of election dispute requires that the petitioner should come forward with specific and definite instances of corrupt and illegal practices allegedly committed by the polling staff or the returned candidate. He is also under legal obligation to prove the allegations with conclusive evidence. At the cost of repetition, I would say that not a single allegation set up in the election petition could be substantiated with legal evidence. I am unable to accept the stereotype affidavits of PW-1 to 4. In all the affidavits all the allegations have been repeated word for word. I feel no difficulty in concluding that the contents of the election petition and the evidence produced by the petitioner do not qualify the legal test laid down by the special law.
19. In my judgment, the petitioner failed to set up material facts in the election petition. At trial, he failed to prove the vague allegations with legal evidence. Under some legal advice, the petitioner attempted to improve upon his vague allegations at trial. The improvements being contrary to the case and cause given in the petition are not worthy of credence.
20.In a word, the election petition fails and is dismissed with cost.