The petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 4 had contested election to Ward No.2./1 of Union Council Spin Khak in the Local Council Election of 1987. Maroof Shah respondent No.1 was declared elected.
The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.1 by an election petition on two fold grounds; firstly, that the respondent 1No.l was not entered as a voter in Ward No.2/1: and secondly, five votes polled in favour of the respondent No.1 did not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer of the election and as such were invalid. The learned Election Tribunal recorded evidence as produced by the parties but ultimately dismissed the election petition on 11-2-1989. Finding no other remedy available the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned Election Tribunal as being illegal and without lawful authority.
2.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the entire record of the case.
3. In so far as the first point is concerned it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were two wards in Union Council Spin Khak but the respondent No.1 was not entered as a voter in the ward from which he had contested the election and so he was not possessed of the qualification to contest from that ward. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has drawn our attention to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 27 of the N.W.F.P. Local Councils Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) according to which any person shall be qualified to be elected as a member of a local council if for the time being his name appears on the electoral rolls of the Local Area of the Local Council. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that for being qualified to contest an election to a local council the person should be entered as a voter in the local area of the local council and local area has been defined under sub-clause (26) of clause (A) of section 3 of the Ordinance to mean an area under the jurisdiction of a local council and the next sub-clause (27) defines a local council meaning the local council constituted under the Ordinance and includes a District Council, a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee, Town Committee and a Union Council. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that besides other qualifications laid down in the Ordinance about which there was no dispute between the parties, the other qualification was that the person who wanted to contest election to a Local Council should be registered as a voter of the local area of that Council. If the local area of a Local Council consists of more than one ward then the only qualification with regard to registration of his name on the electoral rolls was that he should be entered as a voter in the electoral roll of that local area. Subsection (1) of section 27 of the Ordinance does not speak of a ward but it lays down that if a person intends to contest election to a Local Council his name should appear on the electoral rolls of the Local Area:
4. Since Union Council Spin Khak consisted of two wards, according to the aforesaid provisions the respondent No. 1 could contest election to that Union Council from any ward as his name was entered on the electoral rolls of the Local Area of that Union Council. This objection of the petitioner regarding the qualification of respondent No.1 for contesting election is, therefore, without any legal force.
3. In so far as the second point is concerned it is admitted that some votes polled in favour of the respondent No.1 did not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer but his stamp was affixed on them. The question is whether the absence of signatures on the ballot paper made it invalid or not.
In this respect rule 32 of the N.W.F.P. Local Councils Election Rules, 1979 lays down in clause (c) of sub-rule (2) that the ballot paper shall on its back be stamped with the official stamp and initialled by the Presiding Officer. According to this rule the ballot paper should bear the stamp as well as initials of the Presiding Officer. The fact that the ballot paper bore the official stamp would indicate that the ballot paper had been issued by the proper authority. The only question is whether the absence of signatures made it invalid. We have considered this aspect very anxiously and we have come to the conclusion that the absence of signatures would not make the ballot paper invalid if it carried the official stamp. Such a situation had arisen in the case of Muhammad Abdullah v. Abdul Wakil (PLD ' 1986 Supreme Court 487) and the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the failure to apply the official stamp, which was alleged to have resulted for want of the official seal, had not materially affected the election and non-sealing of votes would not be regarded a violation of the rules of such magnitude so as to render the election as a whole void particularly when it has not materially affected the result of the election. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the absence of signatures on the ballot papers although the official stamp existed on them would neither invalidate the ballot paper nor adversely affect the election.
6. The learned Election Tribunal had jurisdiction in the matter and he has correctly appreciated both the points involved in the dispute between the parties. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the learned Election Tribunal. There is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.