' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.--Through instant petition the petitioners, who are practicing advocates at Karachi in the High Court of Sindh and participated in the elections of Sindh Bar Council, held on 8th November, 2014, for the period 2015-2019, for various seats of five Districts of Karachi Division ("the impugned elections"), had impugned the entire polling process and have sought the following declarations: "It is, therefore, prayed by the petitioners that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to :- i) Declare that the election held on 8th November, 2014 for the Sindh Bar Council for Karachi Seats of all five Districts as null, void, illegal and of no legal effect. Ii) Order for re-polling of the votes in all five Districts of Karachi on the same nomination forms with due compliance of the Rules of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976. iii) Direct the respondent No, 2 to with-hold the result of the Election of Sindh Bar Council held on 8th November, 2014 and/or not to notify the result in the Official Gazette till disposal of this petition.
Iv) Direct the Nazir to take all boxes / bags of votes and all relevant records and papers in safe custody. v) Cost of the proceedings. Vi) Any other or further relief, which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are Advocates practicing at Karachi in the High Court of Sindh, whose names are appearing in the Roll of Sindh Bar Council. It is further stated that petitioners participated in the elections of Sindh Bar Council for the years 2015-2019, held on 8th November, 2014, however, they noticed certain illegalities and irregularities allegedly committed by the respondents, particularly, respondent No,2, the Chairman, Sindh Bar Council, who, according to the petitioners, suddenly changed the venue of the election for the candidates of Malir District from District Courts, Malir to newly constructed building adjacent to New Annexe Building of High Court of Sindh ("the new High Court Building") without prior notice of 30 days, as required in terms of Rules 11 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 ("the Rules, 1976"). It has been further stated in the memo of petition that earlier a request was made on behalf of some candidates of Malir District to change the polling station from District Courts Malir to High Court of Sindh Building which was declined in writing by the respondent No, 2, Chairman, Sindh Bar Council vide letter dated 01.11.2014, however, subsequently, the said venue was changed from District Courts Malir to the new High Court Building only two days prior to the polling day, therefore, according to the petitioners, their voters could not cast their votes. It has been further stated that the condition for verification of identity card issued by the Pakistan Bar Council/Sindh Bar Council was also relaxed by the Chairman, Sindh Bar Council in violation of law / rule, which resulted in bogus voting, whereas, according to the petitioners, the polling was rigged as there was no proper identification of the voters, whereas, the media was also not allowed to cover the impugned elections of the Sindh Bar Council. It has been further alleged that the ballot boxes/bags were also not properly sealed and stamped and the complaint filed by the petitioners in this regard was not entertained by the Presiding Officer, therefore, it has been prayed that, the impugned elections of the Sindh Bar Council may be declared as illegal and re-polling of the votes in all the five Districts of Karachi Division on the same nomination papers may be directed to be held within a short period. It has been further prayed that Nazir of this Court may be directed to take all ballot boxes / bags of votes as well as the relevant record for safe custody for scrutiny by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that pursuant to rules 11 and 13 of the Rules, 1976, final voters list along with polling stations is required to be issued 30 days prior to the day of election, whereas, in the instant case, per learned counsel, the venue of Malir Polling Station, notified at District Courts Malir, vide letter dated 16 October, 2014, was changed by respondent No, 2 surreptitiously and without notice to all concerned, vide letter dated 6.11.2014, addressed.To the Secretary Sindh Bar Council, which fact could not be known either to the candidates participating in the elections or to their voters. Per learned counsel, in the Sindh Bar Council elections for Karachi Division every voter has to cast 16 votes i.e, six votes for District South, four votes for District East, four votes for District Central and, one vote for District West and one vote for District Malir, whereas, per learned counsel, in view of the sudden change of polling station from District Courts Malir to the the new High Court Building, large number of voters of Malir District could not cast their votes.
Learned counsel further argued that in terms of rule 22(1) of the Rules, 1976, the ballot paper for the election to a member of the Provincial Bar Council is to be issued to the voter by the polling officer only against the production of an identity card issued to him by such provincial bar counsel, whereas, in the impugned elections such rule was relaxed by respondent No, 2 and the voters were allowed to cast their votes on the basis of cards issued by the High Court Bar Association or even on production of National Identity Card. Therefore, per learned counsel, the election process was not transparent. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in order to protect the illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondents during the entire election process, the media was not allowed to cover the elections. Per learned counsel, the objection regarding maintainability of the instant petition by the respondent is misconceived for the reason that the petitioners are not disputing the candidature of any member who participated in the impugned elections of Sindh Bar Council, on the contrary, the entire election process and the violations committed by the respondents have been challenged through instant petition, which, otherwise, could not be challenged by filing a petition before election tribunal in terms of rule 61 of the Rules, 1976. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that since fundamental rights of the candidates participating in the elections and the eligible voters have been seriously affected by the illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondents, as referred to herein above, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to redress the grievance of the petitioners and to declare the impugned elections of the Sindh Bar Council, held on 8.11.2014, in violation of law, rules and regulations, as null and void and to direct the official respondents to hold fresh elections of Sindh Bar Council for the aforesaid period after complying with all the legal formalities. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following reported judgments: a) Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, and others (1994 SCMR 1299), b) Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. Hamid Khan and others (1992 CLC 665), c) Muhammad Saleem v. Provincial Election Authority Sindh and others (PLD 1985 (Kar.) 135), d) Muhammad Baran and others V. Member, Settlement and Rehabilitation and others (PLD 1991 SC 691), e) Lt. Col. Farzand Ali and others v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 98), f) Chaudhry Salahuddin, MLA v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad and others (PLD 1957 (WP) Lah. 728), g) Muhammad Tariq Malik v. Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and others (PLD 2014 Isl.
38), h) Sanaullah Khan Gandapur v. Advocate General, NWFP and others (1995 SCMR 79), i) Rana Moen Akhtar v. Additional Collector, Customs (SBLR 2015 Sindh 01). j) Allah Ditta v. Muhammad Munir and others (PLD 1966 (WP) Lah. 770), k) Muhammad Mustafa v. Syed Zafar All Shah and others (PLD 2014 Sindh 224), 1) In the matter of Human Rights Case Nos. 4668 of 2006, 1111 of 2007 and 15283-G of 2010 (PLD 2010 SC 759), and m) Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Israrul Haq and others (PLD 1981 SC 531).
4. Pursuant to Court's notice, comments/objections have been filed On behalf of official respondents as well as some of the private respondent i.e, the Advocates who participated in the impugned elections. Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, advocate, representing respondent No,21, while making his submissions on behalf of the private respondents, has seriously controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has raised an objection as to the maintainability of instant petition on the ground that the petition involves seriously disputed facts, whereas, alternate remedy by way of filing an election petition before the election tribunal under rule 61 of the Rules, 1976 has not been availed by the petitioners. Per learned counsel, after completion of entire election process and voting on 8.11.2014, the petitioners have raised false and frivolous grounds for disputing the elections without any material or evidence in support of their allegations. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that entire mechanism for redressal of grievance relating to election disputes has been provided in terms of rules 61, 62 and 63 of the Rules, 1976, whereby disputes relating to elections can be agitated and resolved through a self- contained mechanism. It has been further argued that no violation of any law, rules or regulations has been committed by the respondents, whereas, the entire process of the election was transparent and no objection in this regard whatsoever was filed by the said petitioners till the day of election. As regards alleged violation of rule 13 of the Rules, 1976 by the respondents, relating to publishing of final voters' list 30 days prior to the date of polling, learned counsel for respondents has drawn our attention to the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 13 of the Rules, 1976 which, according to the learned counsel for respondents, provides that the Returning Officer has the power to add to the list till the date of polling. However, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners, after the completion of election process and announcement of unofficial results of the elections, have filed the instant petition on 21.11.2014 by raising certain allegations which are not only factually incorrect but also have no legal bearing or effect on the elections of Sindh Bar Council for the period 2015-19. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the allegations as regards the sudden change of venue of polling from District Courts Malir to new High Court building is also contrary to the facts as about five candidates who were taking part in the said elections at District Bar Malir themselves requested the respondent No, 2 for such change to facilitate voters of Malir District which request, though earlier rejected by the respondent No,2, was allowed in view of the permission granted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh to enable the members of Malir District Bar to cast their votes at the new High Court Building, whereas, the voters of District Bar Malir did cast their votes on the day of election at the said premises hence, such change of polling station did not otherwise had any adverse impact on the overall elections of Sindh Bar Council. Per learned counsel, no voter from District Bar Council Malir has come forward to allege that he could not cast his vote in view of the aforesaid change of poling station nor the petitioner could establish as to how only they have been affected by such change of polling station. According to the learned counsel, in election by secret balloting nobody knows as to whom a voter would cast his vote on the day of election. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondents that the total registered voters are 6100 and out of this about 3300 voters have cast their votes in the aforesaid election which is more than 50% turn out of voters, whereas, according to the learned counsel, out of 263 registered voters in the High Court about 207 voters have cast their votes. Per learned counsel, the petitioners have no locus standi to impugn the entire election pi mess which, otherwise, did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and was conducted in a transparent manner. Per learned counsel, the petitioners, after having come to know about their defeat in the aforesaid elections through unofficial results, have filed instant petition on false and flimsy grounds, which is liable to be dismissed in limine. Per learned counsel, even otherwise, large number of voters and candidates who participated in the aforesaid elections by exercising their right of franchise cannot be deprived of such right on mere false allegations, whereas, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, through various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, such practice of disputing or challenging election process by directly filing a Constitutional petition in High Court(s), has been deprecated. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Munir A. Malik v. Malik Muhammad Qayyum and others (PLD 2007 SC 262) and Tariq Mehmood A. Khan and another v. Sindh Bar Council (2012 SCMR 702).
5. Messrs Muhammad Aqil, Salahuddin, Irfan Ahmed Siddiqui, advocate for respondent No, 40, Ms. Farkhunda Jabeen, advocate for respondent No, 50, and Mr. Hakim Ali Shaikh, advocate for respondent No,7, adopted the arguments advanced by, Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, advocate. However, Mr. Salahuddin, advocate also added to such arguments and submitted that most of the facts, as stated in the petition, have been seriously disputed and denied by the private as well as the official respondents by filing their comments/objections/counter affidavits, therefore, according to the learned counsel, on the basis of such disputed facts, the petitioners are not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners have mainly disputed the change of venue of polling station from District Courts Malir to the new High Court Building by alleging that the voters of Malir District could not cast their votes, whereas, according to the learned counsel, such votes cannot be separated as every voter of Karachi Division was required to cast 16 votes, as detailed above, therefore, according to the learned counsel, no interference on the basis of aforesaid allegations can be made by this Court, as it would vitiate the entire election process and would disenfranchise the voters. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that even the order for the change of venue of polling from District Courts Malir to the new building of Sindh High Court, vide letter dated 6.11.2014, was not objected to by the petitioners or any of the voters till the date of polling, whereas, such objection appears to have been raised, for the first time, on 11.11.2014, whereas, instant petition was filed on 21.11.2014 after the announcement of unofficial results of the elections. The petitioners, admittedly, could not succeed in the aforesaid elections, therefore, they have chosen to file instant frivolous petition to challenge the entire election. Learned counsel further submitted that the margin of votes secured by the returned candidate from District Malir i.e, Mr.Amanullah, Advocate and Mr. Ashraf Sammo, Advocate, who participated in the aforesaid elections from District-Malir, is more than the total number of voters who did not cast their votes from District Malir. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it would, even otherwise, have no bearing on the result of the election. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to rule 5(1)
(h) of the Rules 1976 and contended that validity of election of either one member or more than one member can be challenged by approaching the election tribunal under rule 61 of the Rules, 1976. Therefore, per learned counsel, instant petition is misconceived in facts and law and is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on Sanaullah Khan Gandapur v. Advocate General, NWFP/Returning Officer and others (PLD 1997 Pesh. 80), and Javed Iqbal and another v. Returning Officer and others (PLD 2005 Quetta 121).
6. Mr. Saifullah, learned AAG, while defending the official respondents, has submitted that during the entire election process of Sindh Bar Council for the period 2015-19, held on 8.11.2014, no complaint was filed by the petitioners before the polling office or the returning officer in terms of rule 17(1) read with rule 25 of the Rules, 1976, whereas, according to learned AAG, the elections were held after having complied with all the legal formalities and by adopting the procedure provided under the Rules, 1976. It has been further contended by learned AAG that the petitioners have not placed on record any proof, document or material which may support their allegation regarding rigging in the elections or bogus voting on the fateful day of election of Sindh Bar Council. Whereas, baseless allegations have been levelled by the petitioners against the respondents on such disputed facts which, even otherwise, cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It has been further contended that the petitioners have not availed the remedy provided under rule 61 of the Rules, 1976. It has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.
7. It will not be out of place to refer to the comments filed on behalf of respondent No,1, i.e, Secretary, Sindh Bar Council wherein it has been stated that the entire election process was transparent whereas no objection whatsoever was received from any of tire petitioners or the contesting candidates before completion of the election process. It has been further stated that pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2014 of this Court, the Returning Officer started official counting process on 26.11.2014 in the presence of the candidates and their agents, whereas, all the bags numbering 22 of polling stations of Karachi Division were shown to the candidates and their agents.
It has been further stated that during this process it transpired that all the bags were found duly sealed, except one bag of polling station No, 21, which was although partly sealed but was open from one side. It has been further stated that there was no discrepancy between unofficial counting of votes and the official accounting of votes which was done in presences of all the candidates and their polling agents. It has been further emphasised in the comments by respondent No,1 that during the above election process and counting of votes in the presence of candidates and their agents no complaint whatsoever was received by the official respondents whereas allegations in the petitions, besides being false and frivolous, were raised by the losing candidates after announcement of results.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, learned AAG and also carefully examined the contents of the petition, its replies by the respondents as well as the affidavits and counter affidavits filed by the parties during the course of hearing of this petition.
9. Perusal of record shows that certain disputed facts have been agitated by the petitioners through instant petition, which have been seriously controverted and denied by the official respondents as well as the private respondents i.e, the returned candidates who participated in the above elections of Sindh Bar Council. It has also come on record that during the entire process of holding the elections, till its culmination on the day of polling on 8.11.2014, no objection whatsoever relating to election process was raised either by the petitioners or any of the candidates who participated in the aforesaid elections, whereas, admittedly, after completion of the election process and announcement of unofficial results, objection regarding change of polling station from District Courts Malir to new building of the High Court of Sindh was raised by some of the candidates of Malir District for the first time on 11.11.2014 whereafter instant petition was filed on 21.11.2014 wherein allegation regarding violation of rules 11 and 13 of the Rules, 1976 have been draised and it has been alleged that the election was rigged. Reference to rules 19(c), 20(1), 22(1) and (3), 24 and 25(3) of the Rules, 1976 has also been made in the memo of petition, however, learned counsel for the petitioners could not bring anything on record to substantiate the allegation regarding violation of the aforesaid rules by the respondents in the impugned elections.
10. The main grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to alleged violation of rules 11 and 13 of the Rules, 1976 as, according to the leaned counsel, the abrupt ,change of polling stations Nos. 21 and 22 from District Court Malir to new building of the High Court, without notice to the candidates, only two days before the date of polling, has rendered the entire election process as null and void and of no legal effect. It will be advantageous if rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1976 is reproduced hereunder:.
"13.(1) The Returning Office shall publish, at least 30 days before the polling, 'a list of voters showing at which polling station a particular voter shall cast his vote.
' Provided that the Returning Officer shall have the power to add to the list till the polling is held:"
11. From perusal of the hereinabove rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1976 it appears that the Returning Officer is required to publish, at least 30 days before the polling, a list of voters, showing at this polling station a particular voter should cast his vote. However, it has been further provided under the first proviso to the said rules that the Returning Officer shall have the power to add to the list till the polling is held.
12. The rules framed by the Sindh Bar Council for holding elections are meant to facilitate transparent and smooth elections whereas the ultimate purpose of framing the said rules is that all the eligible candidates of Sindh Bar Council shall be provided equal opportunity to participate in the election process by contesting elections or to cast their votes to the candidate of their choice on the day of polling. The above rule 13 of the Rules, 1976, in fact, regulates the list of eligible voters who may cast their votes on the polling day at a nominated polling station(s) whereas, the Returning Officer has been fully authorized to add to the list names of eligible voters till the day of polling. Through instant petition no voter has come forward to allege that either his name was not included in the eligible voters list or on account of change of polling station from District Courts Malir to new building at High Court of Sindh, he could not cast his vote to the candidate(s) of his choice. The voting ratio, otherwise, reflects that more than 50% of the voters have cast their votes whereas such ratio is increased in the case of' voters of Malir District. It has also come on record that difference in the votes secured by the returned candidate from Malir District and petitioner No,1, Mr. Ashraf Sammo is more than the total number of remaining votes of District Malir, hence, would not even otherwise have any effect on the result of the election even if it is assumed that all the remaining votes would have been polled in favour of Mr. Samoo.
13. It has further been observed that the allegation raised through instant petition regarding violation of certain rules of Rules, 1976 was not raised at the relevant point of time before the Returning Officer during the election process. Further, admittedly, no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioners till conclusion of election process on 8.11.2014, only after unofficial results of the elections were announced, some of the petitioners raised objection only to the extent of alleged violation of rule 13 i.e, change of venue of polling station for Malir District from District Courts Malir to new building High Court building. Counting of all the 22 polling bags was done in front of all the candidates and their polling agents, which were found to be duly sealed and no objection in this regard, except in relation to one of such polling bags, which was partly sealed, was raised by any of the candidates who participated in the aforesaid elections. No material whatsoever has been placed before this court by the petitioners which may suggest that the entire election process of Sindh Bar Council for the period 2015-19 was illegal or the elections were rigged. On the contrary, it has come on record that till conclusion of the election on the fateful day i.e, 8.11.2014, no objection whatsoever was raised by any of the candidates relating to validity of the elections.
14. As regards the identification of voters who cast their votes on the day of polling, it has been observed that no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioners or their agents regarding identification of any of the voters who, otherwise, are all practicing Advocates and are known to each other. Therefore, the relaxation of the condition of producing the card issued by Sindh Bar Council by the respondent No,2 and that too, by consent of all the candidates, and allowing identification of voters through any other mode of identification, including production of CNIC and the card of High Court Bar Association etc. For identification purpose, cannot be regarded as illegal or violation of rules as alleged by the petitioners.
15. We are of the considered opinion that generalized and vague allegations have been raised by the petitioners without any material or substance, after completion of the entire election process and announcement of unofficial results, whereas most of the facts as stated in the memo of petition have been seriously disputed and denied by the official respondents as well as private respondents through their affidavits which, otherwise, require evidence, hence cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
16: Moreover, the grievance expressed through instant petition, otherwise, could have been agitated by the petitioner at the relevant point of time in terms of rules 61 to 65 of the Rules, 1976 before the Election Tribunal instead of directly approaching this Court by invoking provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant rules 61 to 65 , which read as under: "61. An objection to the election under paragraph (h) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 or under paragraph
(h) of sub-rule (1) of rule 30, may be filed by any candidate at the election or by any five voters to contest the validity of the election of a candidate, by letter signed and delivered to the Chairman of the Bar Council who shall refer such objection to the Election Tribunal concerned for disposal within fifteen days of the date fixed for filing objections. The objection shall be accompanied by a deposit of Rs,100.
62. The letter shall state clearly the grounds upon which the validity of the election is challenged.
63. The objections to the validity of an election of a member shall be heard by the Election Tribunal concerned.
64. The election shall be set aside if the Tribunal finds that an irregularity which has materially affected the result of the election or an illegality has been committed.
65. No irregularity in any proceeding, not even a change of date, as stated in the programme, if such change be due to unavoidable reasons, shall invalidate any proceeding, if it does not materially affect the result of the election."
17. From perusal of above quoted rules, it is clear that an objection to the election can be raised before the Election Tribunal provided under aforesaid rules, whereas, the Election Tribunal, constituted for such purpose, is competent to decide all such election disputes either in respect of one member or more than one member. The term 'member' as used in the aforesaid rules does not refer to only a singular member, as such interpretation would lead to restricting the scope and mandate of Election Tribunal for redressal of grievance in respect of election disputes. Moreover, in terms of section 12 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 "words in singular would include the plural and vice versa". It will not be out of place to refer to the hereinabove provisions of rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, which provide that even an irregularity in proceedings, including a change of date of election, would not invalidate the elections if it does not materially affect the result of the election.
18. We may further observe that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate through evidence nor could produce any material which may suggest that any such illegality or irregularity has been committed by the official respondents during the election process which has materially affected the result of the impugned elections. While invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner has to satisfy that the petitioner is an aggrieved party either seeking enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part H of the Constitution, or he is aggrieved by an act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a province or a local authority, by showing that the act done or proceeding taken is without lawful authority, whereas, there is no adequate remedy provided under law for redressal of such grievance.
19. In the instant case, the petitioners could not refer to any illegality or irregularity which may require this Court to interfere in the election process, particularly, in view of seriously disputed facts and availability of alternate remedy provided in terms of the Rules, 1976.
20. We are, also mindful of the fact that right of franchise is a substantial legal right, therefore, the process of election, in the absence of any express violation of law or the relevant rules, cannot be hampered or disturbed on mere allegations, by this Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, particularly when certain disputed facts have been agitated in the petition. We may further observe that the parties hereto being practicing Advocates ought to have resolved their disputes through their own forum in terms of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and the Rules framed there under, whereby, a domestic alternate remedy has been provided to the aggrieved person for resolution of election disputes, instead of directly approaching this Court through instant petition by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Mehmood A. Khan and another v. Sindh Bar Council (2012 SCMR 702) wherein the issue of maintainability of constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution relating to election disputes has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. We may further rely on the case of Javed Iqbal and another v. Returning Officer and others (PLD 2008 Quetta 121), wherein it has been held that "Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot primarily be invoked for making probe into controversial facts based on two conflicting documents as equitable relief sought for resulting into disfranchising the candidate cannot be availed."
Similarly, in the case reported as Sanaullah Khan Gandapur v. Advocate General, NWFP/Returning Officer and others (PLD 1997 Pesh. 80), it has been held that where any irregularity had taken place during process of election of Provincial Bar Council materially affecting result thereof; same had to be resolved by Election Tribunal being the only forum provided for election disputes by the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976.
21. We may observe with respect that the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not relevant to the subject controversy, hence of no assistance to the petitioners' case.
22. In view of the herein above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the above petition is misconceived in facts and law, which is hereby dismissed along with listed applications.