' MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.-- The petitioner obtained 806, the third highest number of votes in an election, from Electoral Unit No. 57 of Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. Sultan Ayaz respondent No. 2 obtained 960 the highest number of votes and Muhammad Siddiq respondent No. 8 received 909 the second highest number of votes. Muhammad Siddiq and the present petitioner challenged the election in an election petition. The two petitions were heard together and were both dismissed.
Muhammad Siddiq has not agitated the matter any further but the present petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The learned counsel has argued that on account of hooliganism at Polling Station No. 162 the election was stopped for two and a half hours, though it continued until 8-00 p.m. It is contended by the learned counsel that the polls having been stopped they could not be restarted except by the orders of Election Authority. The learned counsel has also argued that since extensive illegal practices were committed at the election, the election, therefore, had to be declared void as a whole.
3. It is correct that polls had been interrupted for two and a half hours as admitted by the Presiding Officer, who appeared as a witness before the Election Tribunal but the stoppage as visualised by rule 28(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 is a concept which is altogether different from a mere interruption of the polls for two and a half hours. Under sub-rule (1) the Presiding Officer can stop the poll if there is interruption or obstruction of the poll and for that, reasons had to be given in writing. In the present case even though the poll was interrupted for two and a half hours no stoppage has been ordered by the Presiding Officer as is visualised by rule 28(1). It was, therefore, a mere interruption in the poll and not the stoppage as is visualised by rule 28(1). There is, therefore, no merit in this contention of the learned counsel.
4. The petitioner raised allegation of extensive illegalities and malpractices in the conduct of the election but the blame for the hooliganism has not been proved against respondent No.1, the returned candidate. The Election Tribunal has very clearly held that it was Muhammad Tufail respondent No.5 who was responsible for the hooliganism and in fact respondent No.2, the returned candidate had joined the other candidates, through his agent, in moving an application in this regard before the Deputy Commissioner. It is clear, therefore, that even if there had been hooliganism it was not caused by the returned candidate. The election, therefore, could not be void on that ground either.
5. As to the actual poll, the learned counsel has referred to the findings of the Election Tribunal that as against 1,018 ballots issued for all the four booths of Polling Station No. 162, 1,019 votes were recovered from the boxes. The learned counsel has argued that the excess of one vote recovered from the boxes shows that there was no sanctity attached to the remaining 1,018 votes recovered from the boxes. We are afraid, it is difficult to subscribe to this view. In order to succeed in an election petition, the petitioner is required to show not only the existence of large scale malpractices but also that the malpractices have materially affected the poll. In this case the excess of one vote cannot be termed a prevalence of extensive corrupt or illegal practice, at the election and surely it could not have materially affected the result of the poll as the returned candidate had a lead of 154 votes over the present petitioner and 51 votes over Muhammad Siddiq respondent No.8.
' In view of the above consideration we find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
Writ refused.