' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Gujranwala on 5-7-1992, whereby he summarily dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, challenging the election of the respondent No,1 as Councillor of Ward No, 34 of Halqa Khiali, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala, on the ground that the documents annexed with the election petition had not been signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner as required by 9(a) of the Election Petition Rules, 1979.
2. Mr. Sarfraz-ul-Hassan Adv. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no violation of rule 9(a) of the Election Petition Rules, 1979 and the documents filed with the election petition were duly signed and verified. The other contention of the learned counsel is that the provisions of rules 5 and 9 of the Punjab Election Petition Rules, 1979 are not imperative and non-compliance thereof should not be visited with extreme penalty of dismissal of the election petition. His last contention is that the documents which were filed with the election petition were neither annexures nor schedule to the petition and therefore the petition could have not dismissed by the Election Tribunal.
3. Mr. Zamir Hussain Adv. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the word "may" appearing in rule 9 is to be interpreted as mandatory and after having found the violation of the aforesaid rule, the Election Tribunal had no other option but to dismiss the election petition.
4. A perusal of the order passed by the Election Tribunal shows that it falls short of legal requirements. None of the contentions of the petitioner was examined by the Election Tribunal before proceeding to reject the election petition. The Tribunal on the face of the record, acted mechanically and in a slipshod manner by proceeding to dismiss the election petition without first determining whether the documents in question were annexures or schedule to the election petition within the meaning of rule 5(3) and whether the provisions of rule 9(a) of the Election Petitions Rules, 1979, were directory or mandatory in nature.
' In the circumstances, this petition is allowed the impugned order is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The case is remanded to the Election Tribunal, Gujranwala who shall decide it afresh in accordance with law. It shall be open to the respondents to raise objection as to the non- A compliance of provisions of rule 5(3) before the Election Tribunal and such objection if raised shall be decided in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.