' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-This order will dispose of W. P. No, 1382/84 and W.P. No, 1383/84 as these challenge the same election.
2. The petitioner in the first petition sought election from Ward No, 2 of Chak No, 32 of Union Council Phuliani, Tehsil Chunian District Kasur. He got 119 votes out of which 29 were invalid, and leaving the balance of valid votes as 90. Respondent No, 1 obtained 125 votes out of which 25 votes were declared as invalid, thus, having 100 valid votes, the lead being of 10 votes. The petitioner filed an election petition which was accepted ex parte on 6th November, 1983. The respondent No, 1 filed W.
P. No, 5211/83 which was with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, remanded for fresh hearing after hearing both the parties. This is vide order, dated 14th January, 1984. On remand, the learned Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition of the petitioner on the preliminary objection that the petitioner had not delivered a copy of the petition either personally or by registered post as required by rule 4 of the Election Petition Rules 1979 by exercising his discretion under rule 9 of the aforesaid which lays down that the "Tribunal may dismiss an election petition if, the provisions of rules 3, 4 and 8 have not been complied with. This is vide order, dated 27th March, 1984. This is challenged by the petitioner through the above-titled Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is nowhere provided in rule 4 that the copy shall be delivered before the institution of the election petition nor any other time has been specified thereunder. Therefore, it is open to an electioneer petitions to deliver copy of the election during the pendency of the proceedings.
3. This petition is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the Election Tribunal has exercised its discretion as conferred on it by law that it may dismiss a petition where the provisions of rule 4 have not been complied with and rule 4 is quite clear in laying down that the petitioner (Election Petitioner) shall deliver a copy of the petition to the respondent either personally or by registered post". Secondly, the rule 4 envisages that the copy shall be delivered simultaneously with the filing of the election petition. No further presumption was required. The petitioner fought fairly and squarely and has lost election by a lead of 10 of the respondent No,
1. His election petition has been dismissed for his own omission to do what the law required him to do, in exercise of power conferred by law on the Election Tribunal. Its decision cannot be said to be without lawful authority. Therefore, the Constitutional petition has no merit or force and is therefore dismissed in limine.
4. The second petition viz. W.P. No, 1383/84 has been filed on behalf of a voter. This is obviously an attempt of the defeated candidate in the first petition to get his successful rival out of office on one pretext or other. The petitioner apparently is an instrument in the hand of the defeated candidate as it is same learned counsel who argued for the latter's petition. The petition is a stringent do.
Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be so utilized. The petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.