AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- C.M. No, 4/2017 With the consent of both counsel, C.M. No, 2/2018 for restoration of the titled petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9.1.2018 is allowed. Consequently the titled petition is restored to its original number and the main case alongwith all CMs is fixed for hearing today.
Main Case
3. Through this petition, the Petitioner has impugned order dated 2.5.2017 passed by Respondent No, 2, Election Tribunal, Faisalabad.
4. The relevant facts of the case are that the Petitioner, Respondents No, 1 and 3 to 7 participated in the election held on 31.10.2015 for the seat of Councilor from Ward No, 26, Housing Colony No, 1, Municipal Committee, Samundri, District Faisalabad. After the election, the Petitioner was declared as returned candidate. Respondent No, 1 filed an election petition against the Petitioner and Respondents No, 3 to 7 which is still pending. The Petitioner has contested the election petition and denied all the alleotions given in the petition. During the pendency of the election petition, Respondent No, 1 filed an application for recounting of votes which was dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2016 with the observation that no evidence has so far been produced on this issue. Thereafter issues were framed on 21.3.2016. Respondent No, 1 produced his evidence in the shape of affidavits and his witnesses were cross-examined. The Petitioner has still to produce his evidence when Respondent No, 1 again submitted an application for recounting of votes which was accepted by Respondent No, 2 vide impugned order dated 2.5.2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that earlier Respondent No, 1 filed application on the same subject-matter which was dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2016 being premature with the observation that after recording evidence, Respondent No, 1 would have the right to file such an application. Learned counsel further stated that Respondent No, 1 prior to the completion of the evidence again filed the application for recount which has been allowed by Respondent No, 2 vide the impugned order dated 2.5.2017.
5. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that no vested right of the Petitioner has been infringed nor has he been deprived of any right or obligation due to him. Furthermore he has not suffered any injury or legal wrong by virtue of the letter dated 2.5.2017. The evidence is yet to be recorded in the election petition and mere recounting of votes does not in any way prejudice the case of the Petitioner. Furthermore a right of appeal is also available to the Petitioner once an order has been passed by the Election Tribunal against the Petitioner. Under the circumstances, no illegality is made out in the impugned order dated 2.5.2017 passed by Respondent No, 2.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed.