' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby, Ghulam Hussain petitioner wants this Court to declare the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal/ Additional District Judge (2), Muzaffargarh, on 21st June, 1981 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that on 25th September, 1979 Ghulam Hussain petitioner and Ghaus Bakhsh respondent No, 2 contested election for the seat of a Member, Union Council Shah Jamal, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh. Ghulam Hussain petitioner was declared successful. Thereupon, Ghaus Bakhsh respondent No, 2 filed a petition before the Election Authority, Lahore on 1st October, 1979 on the allegations which are covered by section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, wherein he challenged the election mainly on the ground of corrupt and illegal practices. On 13th November, 1979 the learned counsel for respondent No, 2 moved an application before the Election Authority seeking permission to amend the petition so as to confine the allegations falling within the purview of section 21-A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. He amended the petition confining the allegations to the extent of section 21 (A)
(1) :- which reads :- ' No candidate contesting election under the Provisions of the Ordinance shall, directly or indirectly :-
(a) give out himself as a candidate or nominee of a political party ;
(b) claim or draw or receive any financial or other assistance from any political party for the purposes of election
(c) bear, display or carry any document, sign, insignia, flag or any other thing indicating his association with or affiliation to a political party ;
(d) seek the votes or sympathies of the people on party basis of the manifesto of any political party ; or
(e) seek the votes or support of the people by attributing direct or indirect party affiliations to any of his opponents.
' This petition was contested by Ghulam Hussain petitioner who denied the allegations levelled against him in the amended petition. This petition was, however, transferred to the Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh by the Election Authority. The Tribunal recorder' the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties and vide his order dated 21st June, 1981 accepted the petition. Hence this writ petition.
3. At the time of admission, i. e. 30th June, 1981, Mian M. Zafar Yasin, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended inter alia that the impugned order of respondent No, 1 was without jurisdiction inasmuch as he was not notified as Election Tribunal under section 25 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. On the previous date, the learned counsel had vehemently contended that the learned Additional District Judge, respondent No, 1 was not competent to hear the petition, because he was not notified as Election Tribunal for Muzaffargarh Municipality and that the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh was notified as Election Tribunal for all Union Councils of Muzaffargarh District.
4. Today the learned counsel has conceded that the Election Authority which had transferred the case to respondent No, 1 was competent to do so and as such it cannot be said that respondent No, 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition. He has, however, raised the following points :-
(i) That respondent No, 2 was not permitted to amend the prayer made by him in the amended petition, and as such he was not entitled to ask for the relief prayed by him in the petition
(ii) That the Election Tribunal has not mentioned particular provisions of law under which he had accepted the petition and also has not stated in clear terms the consequences of the grant of the petition.
(iii) That the Tribunal has not properly appreciated his judgment is based on misreading of evidence. The evidence and As against this the learned counsel for respondent No, 2 has supported the impugned judgment.
5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the reasons that as for point No, (i), respondent No, 2 had sought amendment in the petition in order to confine the same within the ambit of section 121-A of the aforementioned Ordinance and as such he could make the prayer as made by him before the Election Authority. {{URDU TEXT}} To our mind, this prayer is in accordance with section 21-A of the aforesaid Ordinance. So far as point No, (ii) is concerned we have not been impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel presented in support of this point. The amended petition, nature of the allegations and the relief claimed clearly show the provisions under which the impugned order has been passed. The Election Tribunal has stated in the last para. Of its judgment :-- "The comparison and analysis of the parties' evidence assists to conclude that the evidence led by the petitioner is comparatively more run natural, independent, and trustworthy. And reliable.
Besides, respondent never attempted to disclose the stand in the course of cross-examination of the P. Ws. Hence the petition is granted."
It is, therefore, very much clear that the relief prayed for in the amended petition has been allowed.
Moreover, it is not very much necessary for the Tribunal to quote particular section or state in so many words, the -consequences of the grant of the petition. As for the last point,' we find that the respondent No, 2 had examined witnesses in support of the allegations which are covered by section 21-A of the aforementioned Ordinance It was within the authority of respondent No, 1 to believe the evidence or not. The Tribunal had applied its mind to the evidence produced by the parties and has given reasons in support of its conclusion. In these circumstances, we do not desire to interfere in the matter.
' For what has been stilted above we do not see any force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.