' Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 1-12-1998 whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the Constitution Petitions filed by the respondent No,4 herein.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent No,4 namely, Rai Muhammad Ejaz and Ch. Muhammad Shafi, respectively were elected as Members of the Town Committee Rabwah, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang in the last local council election held on 20-4-1998. After the election having been notified, the election to the Special Interest Seats of the Town Committee was held on 15-10- 1998. The respondents in their Constitutional petitions made a grievance of the fact that they were not allowed to cast vote on the basis of a forged and fabricated order of the High Court produced by respondent No,11. It was further averred in the petitions that the respondent No,4 apprised the respondents Nos.2 and 3 about the forged nature of the order but no heed was paid by them and the respondent No,4 in both the petitions were illegally restrained to cast their vote. It was also contended that the election of petitioners and respondent No,11 was illegal being a part of the fraud. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after appraising the facts of the case and having heard the Additional Advocate-General, Punjab came to the conclusion that admitted position on the record was that a Writ Petition No,21054 of 1998 filed by Allah Ditta was dismissed by the High Court on 13-10-1998 but some one by manipulation forged and fabricated the order of the High Court under which the respondent No,4 herein were restrained from casting their votes in the election to the Special Interest Seats. On the basis of this naked fraud, the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court came to the conclusion that such forgery amounted to interference in the election process and through fraud, the election of petitioners and respondent No,11 was manoeuvered, and, thus being fraudulent stood vitiated and was liable to be set aside, It may be stated here that a criminal case was also registered, which was under investigation. The learned Judge also issued direction with regard to the investigation of the aforesaid case.
3. It is contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the election of the petitioners and respondent No,11 because the only remedy to achieve the said object was by way of filing an election petition.
4. We are afraid, this contention has no force in view of the naked fraud and forgery committed by fabricating the orders of the High Court. Fraud would vitiate howsoever solemn the proceedings may be, No premium can be given on the basis of fraud. Accordingly, we find no merit in these petitions which are dismissed.