#TBS 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no cavil with the proposition that it rests in the exclusive domain of Election Tribunal to determine whether a particular ballot-paper is valid or invalid and his finding thereon is not ordinarily open to interference in writ jurisdiction. This proposition, however, is of no avail in the present case as #TBE #TBS 2518 Monthly Law Digest [Vol: XI #TBE ' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner and Raja Abdul Ghafoor respondent No,1 contested election for the membership of Union Council Dohrria from village Mohri Sharif, Ward No,1, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat. According to the result of the count made by the Presiding Officer, petitioner and the respondent secured 295 and 293 valid votes, respectively and 32 votes were rejected. Petitioner was accordingly declared elected as a member of the Union Council. Respondent No, 1 challenged the petitioner's election in an election petition filed under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The election petition was decided by the Election Tribunal only by recounting the votes. It may be noted that when the packets containing the valid votes of the parties were opened, 294 ballot papers came out of the packet relating to the petitioner although according to the result prepared/declared by the Presiding Officer, petitioner had obtained 295 valid votes. Learned Election Tribunal took no steps to resolve this discrepancy and instead proceeded on the premises that the petitioner's votes were 294. During the re-count, learned Tribunal rejected 7 votes each of the petitioner and respondent No,] with the result that the petitioner was left with 287 and the respondent with 286 votes. Respondent was given another two votes declared valid by the learned Tribunal out of 32 rejected votes. Total votes of the respondent thus came to be 288 (293-7+2) as against 287 votes of the petitioner. Respondent No,1 was, therefore, declared elected by a margin of one vote and his election petition allowed vide order, dated 23-4-1988.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the Election Tribunal, petitioner has challenged it in the present Constitutional petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Election Tribunal has given no reason for rejecting/excluding 7 votes each from the count of the petitioner and the respondent and for declaring 2 out of 32 rejected votes as valid and counting them in favour of the respondent. Yet another grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal made no efforts to find out the truth about the one missing ballot paper of the petitioner.
' Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Election Tribunal was not required to give any reason for rejecting or accepting the ballot papers. He has further submitted that the question of the validity or otherwise of the ballot papers lay exclusively within the ambit of jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal and his finding thereon is not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on "Khan Shahzada v. Maulvi Fazal Rabi" 1983 SCM R 125.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parites. There is no cavil with the proposition that it rests in the exclusive domain of Election Tribunal to determine whether a particular ballot-paper is valid or invalid and his finding thereon is not ordinarily open to interference in writ jurisdiction. This proposition, however, is of no avail in the present case as the impugned order on the face of it appears to have been passed arbitrarily. Election Tribunal has excluded 7 votes each from the count of the petitioner and respondent No,1 but has given no reasons whatsoever for rejecting the votes declared and accepted as valid by the Presiding Officer.
Similarly, no reason has been given by the learned Election Tribunal for declaring 2 votes as valid out of 32 votes rejected by the Presiding Officer and for including them in the count of the respondent. The order, in fact, is not a speaking order as it suffers from want of reasons for the decision given. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the Election Tribunal was not required to give reasons for his decision on the question of validity/invalidity of the votes. In our view, the learned Election Tribunal in rejecting the votes accepted as valid by the Presiding Officer and vice versa ought to have stated the reasons for his decision, of course, with reference to the provisions of Rule 40(4) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules. For instance, it should have been specifically stated by the Election Tribunal that a particular ballot-paper has been rejected for the reason that it did not bear official mark and signature of the Presiding Officer.
This obviously has not been done. Learned Election Tribunal was also clearly wrong in taking the petitioner's votes as 294 just because 294 ballot-papers came out of the relevant packet. The learned Tribunal should have held a proper inquiry and recorded a definite finding as to the exact number of ballot-papers put in the petitioner's packet by the Presiding Officer. Truth could well be arrived at by examining the election record and the Presiding Officer.
' In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order shall have to be set aside and the case remanded to the Election Tribunal for passing fresh orders. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and the else remanded to the learned Election Tribunal respondent No,2 for passing fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light Of the observations made herein-in-above. Learned Election Tribunal shall decide the matter within a period of one month. There will be no order as to costs.