This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Whereby Muhammad Shafi petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders dated 1st October, 198.1 and 28th October, 1981 passed by the Election Tribunal, Sahiwal, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that Muhammad Shafi petitioner, Muhammad Azam Khan, respondent No. 1, Shafiq-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Din were candidates for the Worker(s) Seat in Town Committee Renala Khurd. Shafiq-ur-Rehman's withdrew his candidature: Muhammad Din did not place his ballot box 'in the Polling Booth. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 contested the election wherein Muhammad Shafi petitioner was declared elected. Muhammad Azam Khan respondent No. 1 filed an election petition against Muhammad Shafi petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal. Muhammad Din however, was not impleaded as respondent The petitioner filed written statement raising as many as four preliminary objections. The Tribunal accordingly framed three preliminary issues :-
(1) Whether Muhammad Din was a contesting candidate ? If so, what is the effect of his non- impleading as a party to this petition. O. P. R.
(2) Whether the election petition is bad and not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 ? O. P. R.
(3) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the preliminary objection No. 3 contained in written statement filed by respondent No. 1.
All the three issues were decided against Muhammad Shafi petitioner herein on 1st October, 1981.
After rejecting the preliminary objections through Issues 1 to 3, the Election Tribunal framed the following additional issues on the merits :-
(1) Whether the respondent No. 1 does not come within the ambit of definition of worker or self employed ? If so, its effect. O. P. P.
(2) Whether the respondent No. 1 was affiliated with the defunct P. P. P ? If so, its effect. O. P. P.
(3) Relief.
The parties led their evidence on the proof and rebuttal of the issues. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Election Tribunal accepted the petition. He found issue No. 1 against Muhammad Shafi, the present petitioner. Issue No. 2, however, remained not pressed. The Election Tribunal as a result of his finding on issue No. I accepted the petition and held that Muhammad Shafi petitioner herein was not eligible for contesting the election against worker's seat, in Town Committee Renala Khurd and, as such, the election of Muhammad Shafi was declared void. The Election Tribunal, however, directed fresh election. Hence 'this petition.
3. On 15th February, 1982, relying on the list of voters Annexure `C' learned counsel for the petitioner argued (1) that the. Election Tribunal has not properly appreciated the same inasmuch as the voters list is a strong evidentiary piece of evidence and the rejection of the same can be only on some sound reasons. The mere finding that the voters list is not binding does not render the same without any evidentiary value and, as such, respondent No. 2 has exercised his discretion illegally in not adjudicating any evidentiary value to the Electoral Roll at all (2) that Muhammad Din was a contesting candidate and, as such, a necessary party. The respondent herein having omitted to implead him as a party, the election petition was not maintainable; (3) that the evidence has not been appreciated in accordance with the principles qua the judicial appraise meat of the evidence inasmuch as that no efforts have been made to appraise the evidence, no weight has been given to the effect that the evidence against the petitioner was interested, the evidence of respondent has been accepted without examining as to whether they had a source or knowledge to testify as to whether the petitioner was a workman or not ; and (4) that the evidence adduced by the petitioner has been rejected with out reasons.
4. On 15th February, 1982 during the arguments, Sh. Muhammad Akram Advocate who was holding a watching brief on behalf of respondent No. 1, with the permission of the Court, pointed out that the petitioner has attached Annexure `G', the voters' list with this petition which is not a true copy of the Exh. D which was proved before the Election Tribunal and that list annexed with this petition is a forged document to deceive the Court. On this the record of the Election Petition was sent for and same has been perused. After perusing Exh. D 1 we find that the same does not tally with Annexure `G' attached with this petition.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and gone through the material available before us with care. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the Election Tribunal for the reason that the petitioner seeking aid of this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction has come with unclean hands. He wanted this Court to rely on Annexure `G' which, in fact, is not a true copy of Exh. D. I. Produced by him before the Election Tribunal. In Annexure, `G', the name and particulars of the petitioner are given at serial No. 50 whereas in Exh. D.
I. At serial No. 50. Muhammad Iqbal son of Jan Muhammad, whose grandfather's name was Fateh Din and was a labourer aged 25 years, resident of Basti Dad Sahib has been mentioned. The petitioner has attempted to deceive this Court and his conduct is sufficient to disentitle him to the discretionary relief under Article 9 of the P. C. O.
So far as the contention No. 3 is concerned, we find that the Election Tribunal has applied its mind to the factual and legal aspects of the matte and has appreciated the evidence in accordance with the rules laid down by the Superior Courts. We further find that the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter and appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that the Tribunal has decided the matter rightly or wrongly or even erroneously would not be a good ground for interference with the same writ jurisdiction.
As regards second contention, we find that the Election Tribunal has dealt with this objection and given cogent reasons in support of its conclusion. We further find that the petitioner, in fact, had not contested the election and, as such, was not a contesting candidate.
6. For all these reasons it is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine.