MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J. This order will govern two writ petitions bearing Nos. 21000/98 and 21058/98.
Since both of the petitions involve similar facts and were argued together M/s. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Rana Nasar Ullah Khan, Advocates, these are, therefore, being disposed of by a single order.
2. Facts, of writ petition 21058/98, briefly stated, are these: Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner and Zulfiqar Aslam Cheema respondent No. 3 contested the election from an electoral unit of District Council Sialkot. Petitioner was declared as elected. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 3 filed a Constitutional petition before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction that petitioner should approach the Election Tribunal. Pursuant to the above command, respondent No. 3 could not file the Election Petition on account of non-availability of the Election Tribunal. Confronted with this situation, respondent No. 3 approached the Election Authority, and the said petition was disposed of by the Election Authority in the following terms:- "This single order shall dispose of the two transfer application Nos. TA 71 and TA 72 simultaneously.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 23.9.1998 directed the petitioner to file the Election Petition before the Election Tribunal. But the concerned Election Tribunal having been transferred without any substitute so under the circumstances the election petitions titled Falak Sher Vs. Muhammad Rafi and Zulfiqar Aslam Cheema Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad may be transferred to some other Election Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of transfer order of the learned Election Tribunal in support of his contention.
Mushtaq Ahmad are entrusted to the District Judge, Sialkot. The Tribunal from which the election petitions have been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of Election Petitions reaches the transfree Election Tribunal well in advance of the next date of hearing."
3. In compliance with the above order, respondent No. 3 filed the election petition before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, who passed impugned order dated 8.10.1998 whereby the election result of the petitioner was suspended. This order, according to petitioner, necessitated the filing of instant Constitutional petition. There is hardly any necessity to recaptulate the facts of W.P.
21000/98. They bear the mathematical resemblance with the facts noted above.
4. Learned ,:counsel for respondent No. 3 (in both petitions) submitted that he had no objection to the acceptance of these petitions; that the order dated 8.10.1998 passed by Election Tribunal and order dated 26.9.1998 passed by Election Authority be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner too accepted the above suggestion and stated that the petition be disposed of in consonance with the statement of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
5. We have attended to the consenting statements made by learned counsel for the parties. As regards first concession relating to order dated 8.10.1998, we are inclined to accede to suggestion of the learned counsel. So far order of Election Authority is concerned, we are persuaded to accept the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties. From the order itself, it is clear that it was of administrative nature and Election Petition was sent to the learned District Judge who was acting as Election Tribunal. This was done on account of non-availability of another Tribunal. This being the position, we do not find any merit in the consenting statement of the parties. This, however, will not preclude the petitioners from raising this question over there.
6. As a result of concurrence of the parties, these petitions are hereby allowed; the order passed by learned Election Tribunal dated 8.10.1998 is hereby set aside and these petitions succeed to the aforesaid extent only.