1. Petitioner Muhammad Bashii and respondent Badar-ur-Zaman Contested the Election to the office of Councillors in respect of Ward No. 4 in Town Committee, Sambrial. At the conclusion of the Polls, the petitioner was declared as successful candidate. Thus, the respondent Badar-uz-Zaman assailed the aforesaid Election through an Election Petition, which was allowed by the Election Tribunal vide order dated 25th of April, 1992 whereby the respondent Badar-uz-Zaman was declared to have been elected.
2. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the aforesaid order of the Election Tribunal has been called in question. Respondent Badar-uz-Zaman who had filed the Election Petition had raised a number of questions with regard to the irregularities and illegalities committed in the Election, and the same were dealt with by the Election Tribunal. In the first instance the ballot papers in respect of Ward No. 6 in which Election took place had been converted into 4 were rejected by the Election Tribunal. Similarly, the foils and the counterfoils did not tally with the counterfoils of the petitioner and the balance recovered.
2. Therefore, the Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that three ballot --papers were imported from somewhere. The Election Tribunal in fact relied upon the judgment reported as Sher Afgan v.
3. Aamir Hayat (1987 SCM R 1987) and in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court the Election Tribunal proceeded to decide the questions involved in the Election Petition, and the following decisions were taken: (a)The Tribunal excluded two votes from the count of the petitioner, because one from the main packet and the other from the packet of the spoiled votes did not mark the specific symbol as the voters had marked on more than one symbol. Therefore, the intention of the voter could not be gathered.
4. (b)At the Polling Station No. 233, nine votes had been rejected, two. were counted in favour of the petitioner and one in favour of the respondent because the mark by the voter was ascertainable.
3. In short, the Tribunal after careful consideration and after having ascertained all the votes cast in favour of the respondent and the petitioner pretiared the following chart: BADAR-UZ-ZAMAN POLLING STATION No. 234 Main Packet66Out of 70, one rejected as Chair + Car 2 rejected as without signature or stamp and one rejected being that of Lantern.
5. From the packet of cancelled votes: 5 Recovered from the packet of1 Noor Elahi (Lantern)
6. POLLING STATION No. 233 From the main packet99Out of 100, one rejected with mark of thumb-impression.
7. From the packet of rejected2 votes: Total:173 MUHAMMAD BASHIR POLLING STATION No. 234 From the main packet82Out of 88, 1 rejected with the mark of thumb-impression, 2 rejected as without sign or stamp, 3 rejected with the converted ward number and beyond counterfoils.
8. POLLING STATION No. 233 From the main packet86 From the packet of rejected votes1 Total;169 In the light of the above chart the Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent Badar-uz- Zaman had a lead of four votes, and thus, he was declared as successful candidate.
9. 4.I have heard the learned counsel at length, and have also gone through the facts of the case. In my view the decision taken by the Tribunal in the light 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court is in consonance with the law on the subject and, therefore, it does not merit interference by this Court.
10. Hence, this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.