' This writ petition calls in question the order of Election Tribunal, Okara, dated 17-1-1985 whereby accepting the election petition of defeated candidate Muhammad Saleem be declared the election--of Ward No.2, Municipal Committee, Okara void as a whole.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was declared elected at the election to Ward No. 2, Municipal Committee, Okara held on 28-9-1983. Respondent No. 7 is defeated candidate. He filed an election petition. The material issue framed by the Election Tribunal from the pleadings of the parties was issue No. 3 which was to the effect--whether the respondents committed illegality, malpractice during the conduct of election in Ward No. 2 Municipal Committee, Okara, as alleged in para. No. 7 of the petition, if so, its effect?
3. The Election Tribunal recorded the evidence of parties and thereafter in the light of decision on issue No. 3, it was held that by virtue of illegalities committed at the ladies polling station inasmuch as bogus practice of voting has been established beyond any shadow of doubt as such the election of Ward No.9 has become void as a whole. It was also held that by virtue of corrupt practice carried out by the present petitioner who was respondent No.4 to the election petition, the result of the election was affected in the sense that secrecy of ballot in the circumstances became doubtful. The operative part of the order of Election Tribunal reads as follows:- "I accordingly hold that election of the respondent No.4, who returned elected from Ward No.2 Okara is void, partly because of his corrupt and illegal practice committed by him and partly because the Presiding Officer of the female polling booth failed to comply with the provisions of election rules. According to later part of my findings, the election of Ward No.2, in the circumstances, is held void as a whole. I accordingly direct that fresh election for this seat be held in the manner as provided under the law."
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.
A reference to rule 15 of the Election Petition Rules, 1979 framed under Local Government Ordinance, 1979 shows that a Tribunal shall declate the election as a whole to be void if it is satisfied that the result of the election has been materially affected by reason of:-
(a) The failure of any person to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance or the Election Rules; or
(b) The prevalence of extensive corrupt or illegal practice at the election.
These absolute requirements of law for exercise of jurisdiction in terms of rule 15 have not been cared to be complied with by the Election Tribunal while deciding the election dispute by his impugned order. The reasons recorded by the Election Tribunal in paras. 28 and 29 of the impugned order, after careful scrutiny appear to us to be lacunic and miserably fall short of legal requirements for declaring the election as a whole to be void. The Election Tribunal, in our view, misread and misapplied the law.
5. The Election Tribunal was required to apply his conscious mind to the requirements of rule 15 and then after being satisfied judicially that the result of election has been materially affected, he could have declared the election as a whole to be void for the reasons listed in sub-paras. (a) and (b) of said yule. On the contrary, what has been factually done is that he content himself by merely observing that bogus practice of voting had been established beyond any shadow of doubt and as such the election of Ward No.2 has become void as a whole. The requirement of result of election having been materially affected obviously escaped the mind of Election Tribunal and no reasons therefor had been recorded. In so far as second ground stated by him that by virtue of corrupt practice carried out by the petitioner, the result of election was affected in the sense that secrecy of the ballot, in the circumstances, became doubtful is concerned, it must be observed that a mere finding of "doubtful" is not a finding of fact established. A mere doubt arising in the mind of an officer is no substitute for proof. This, therefore, could not furnish a valid ground for declaring the election to be void. The further reasoning of the Election Tribunal that the election of returned candidate was void partly because of' corrupt and illegal practice and partly because of the Presiding Officer of female polling booth failed to comply with the provisions of Election Rules, the election as a whole is held to be void again suffer from same infirmity as has been pointed out above. Similarly, the reasons given by him in para. 28 of his judgment for declaring the election as a whole to be void suffer from the same error of approach since it has been arrived at after overlooking the provisions of rule 15 read with rule 13 of Election Petitions Rules.
6. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that there has been no fair and lawful disposal of the election petition. The impugned order of the Election Tribunal, therefore, is set aside and the case is remanded to him for fresh disposal after hearing 'both the parties and applying his conscious mind to the requirements of Election Petitions Rules which govern the exercise of jurisdiction by him. The parties are left to bear their own costs.