M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The petitioner was elected as a Member of Town Committee, Noorpur Thal from Ward No. 2 on 25-9-1979. He secured 266 votes as against 221 votes by his only rival, Abdul Aziz respondent. The election was, however, disputed by the said respondent before the Election Tribunal by a petition moved on 5-11-1979. On the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, the following issues were framed: "(i) Whether the respondent was a nominee of the Pakistan Peoples Party and he sought votes on political basis, if so, its effect? O. P. P.
(ii) Whether the respondent adopted illegal, corrupt and malpractices in this election to get himself elected, if so, its effect? O. P. P.
(iii) Whether the Assistant Commissioner/Registration Officer was not competent to change Halqa Bandi of election unit No. 2 of Noorpur Thal and he illegally included the votes mentioned in Annexures `C' and `D' in this unit, if so, its effect?"
The Tribunal by its order dated 6-10-1981 decided the first two issues against the petitioner and issue No. 3 in his favour and in the result declared the petitioner's election to the Town Committee to be void and simultaneously declined the respondent as duly elected Member of that Committee. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 4916 of 1981 which was heard by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and partly accepted. By judgment dated 24-1- 1982, the High Court invalidated the Tribunal's order declaring respondent Abdul Aziz to be duly elected and observed that "it will be open for the statutory functionaries to hold a fresh election after adhering to the steps and methods laid down by the statute which ordain absolute compliance".
2. The main contention of the petitioner before the High Court was against declaring respondent No. 2 to have been duly elected. With this, the High Court readily agreed as in its view. "The doctrine of thrown away votes, was neither attracted nor shown to have been fulfilled in the facts of this case" and also because "the election was ab initio conducted and held in clear breach of the mandatory requirements of the Punjab Local Government Ordi--nance, 1979". The High Court also accepted the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try issue No. 1 in view of this Court's decision in Malik Khuda Bakhsh Tiwana v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Qurashi (C. P.
S. L. A. No. 73-R of 1981 decided on 3-6-1981).
3. The grievance of the petitioner arises, however, from the view taken by the High Court in respect of issues Nos. 2 and 3. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal had found that 94 voters at serial Nos. 1269 to 1363 had not been allowed to cast their votes until 3-45 p. m. And then too only 11 of them had been. Permitted to cast their votes, six minutes before the expiry of the election time, with the result that 83 voters had to go back without casting votes. The Tribunal held that "the respondent did not agree to allow these persons to cast their votes" and that he had `tampered with the polling scheme and there were so many cutting on these lists" and thus concluded that he had acted "in collusion with the Polling Staff". With this, the High Court agreed anti held that "the findings of the Election Tribunal in this respect have not been shown to suffer from vitiative infirmity". It is contended that no such specific allegation had been made by the respondent in his election petition as is required by rule 5(b) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979. It is further contended that the allegations did not constitute a corrupt or illegal practice on the part of the petitioner within the meaning of Rules 72 and 73 of Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 read with Rule 13 (d) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules and that in any case there was no evidence to support the petitioner's collusion with the Polling Officers. According to learned counsel the allegations if at all con--cerned the conduct of the Polling Officers but not of the petitioner. Mr. M. Nawaz Qasuri, who was present on behalf of the respondent, was not able to readily point out the evidence to support the allegation of collusion.
4. Issue No. 3 relates to the voters who live in the Derajat adjac6nt to the respective Ward outside the Town limits. These voters had been allowed to cast their votes in the Ward in question by the Delimitation Officer/Assistant Commissioner, which the Tribunal found to be valid., and justified.
Although this point had thus been decided in favour of the petitioner, the finding was subjected to re-examination by the High Court, perhaps, because of a cross---objection filed by the respondent in the writ petition, and reversed upon the view that there was a clear-cut division between the rural and urban areas and persons registered as voters in such areas, that the Delimitation Officer by his order to include the Derajat had in fact extended the limits of the Town Committee and that the Delimitation Officer had acted wholly without jurisdiction. The contention is that the finding recorded in favour of the petitioner could not be reversed in his writ petition and that there was no occasion for a cross-objection to have been filed in a writ proceeding it is further contended that, even otherwise, the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding in the absence of the voters of derajat who have now filed a separate petition for leave to appeal bearing No. 388 of 1982.
5; In these circumstances, the view taken by the High Court in respect of findings on issues Nos. 2 and 3 requires consideration. We accordingly allow the petition and grant leave to appeal. The operation of the order: passed by the Election Tribunal and the High Court is suspended. Securit3 shall be furnished in the sum of Rs. 2,500. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.