IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY,. J.- The petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 contested election for Electoral Unit No. 28, Zila Council Sialkot. The polling was held on 20th of May, 1998. The petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer that respondent No. 1 be restrained to consider the fudge and sham result of Polling Station No. 151 of Ward No. 28, Zila Council Sialkot while consolidating the result of six Polling Stations and in the alternate if the result is based on invalid, . Forged and concocted count of Polling Station No. 151 other than the valid count as sent by respondent No. 2 the said result and notification thereof, in favour of the respondent be declared illegal, void, mala fide, arbitrary, without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition came up for limine hearing on 25.5.1998. The same was admitted to hearing. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are represented by the learned Additional Advocate-General while Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan.
Advocate has. Appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. The learned Addl. A.G. As well as learned counsel for respondent No. 3 have raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the result has been declared and respondent No. 3 notified as successful candidate vide Notification dated 23.5.1998, therefore, remedy of the petitioner is through an election petition. The learned Addl. A.G. Also-added that whole controversy is factual, therefore, in the circumstances election petition is the only proper remedy available to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this is not a case for election petition and writ is competent and in case evidence is deemed necessary then matter may be sent with direction to respondent No. 4. It is added that in any case if the objection is upheld then the election authority may be directed to decide the matter expeditiously. In this behalf he has referred to Civil Petition No. 793 of 1998.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and gone through the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court has noted the controversy as under:- "In our view, the basic question is whether the High Court could have interfered with in an election matter after the result was notified. The question as to whether there has been manipulation or alteration in the figure of 239, votes allegedly obtained by respondent No. 4. This question of fact, which was within the competence of Election Tribunal under the Ordinance (ibid), Mr. Peracha learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Submits that by now the election petition has become barred by time and it will not be possible for him to avail the remedy. He further submits that Section 5 of Limitation Act will not be applicable".
5. The relevant facts leading to the above petition before the Honourable Supreme Court were that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 contested District Council Election from Electoral Unit No. 2 Gujrat. The result was notified on 21.5.1998. Thereupon the respondent No. 4 approached the Punjab Local Council Election Authority with the allegation that 239 votes obtained by him from one of the Polling Station were fraudulently reduced to 39. The election authority, however, held that it has no jurisdiction and, therefore, refused to interfere. Thereafter respondent No. 4 filed a Constitutional petition which was allowed in the following terms:- "The perusal of the record shows that the result was notified by the Returning Officer is not in accordance with the results as declared by the Presiding Officers of Polling Station Chak Sheru, Election Unit No. 2 and as such the results as notified by the Returning Officer of the above said ward are set aside and the Returning Officer is directed to notify the election councils as declared by the Presiding Officer, of the Polling Stations.
Disposed of with the above observations".
6. The Honourable Supreme Court-after noting down the controversy converted the petition into appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The writ petition was directed to be treated as election petition and decided within period of two months.
7. The upshot of this discussion is that the preliminary objection is upheld. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed with costs. The petitioner may file election petition, which shall be decided expeditiously in any case within two months while the prayer for condonation of delay shall be considered compassionately. 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.