QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The abovementioned two appeals, by leave of the Court, and the petition for leave to appeal can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as all of them are election-related and involve identical questions of law. Put shortly, the facts giving rise to Appeal No,1864 of 2001 are that election to the seats of Zila Nazim and Naib Zila Nazim of District Vehari was held on 2-8-2001. The winning panel of contestants was required to secure at least 919 votes. The panel consisting of the appellants Ch. Nazir Ahmed and Khalid Mehmood Chohan obtained 910 votes while 857 votes were secured by the respondents Mumtaz Khan Khichi and Syed Sajid Mehdi Shah. None of the contesting candidates secured the requisite number of votes. However, during the course of proceedings conducted on 3- 8-2001 in connection with consolidation of results the Returning Officer found that 40 votes had been rejected by the Presiding Officer, Tehsil Burewala and one vote by the Presiding Officer, Tehsil Vehari on the ground that the voters had marked the ballot papers with the wrong side of the "marking aid rubber stamp". Through a detailed order he declared the said rejected votes as valid for the reasons that the voters lacked proper education and training and their intention was discernible. The votes declared valid were added to the votes secured by the contesting candidates with the result that the votes secured by the appellants and the contesting respondents increased to 880 and 927 respectively. The contesting respondents were thus declared elected through a formal Notification dated 4-8-2001. The appellants challenged the order of the Returning Officer dated 3-8-2001 as also the Notification dated 4-8-2001 through Writ Petition No,6876 of 2001 filed in the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan but it was dismissed in limine on 7-8-2001.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeal No,1865 of 2001 are that the appellants Muhammad Tariq and Azhar Hussain Khan and the respondents Aasim Saeed Khan and Naeem Ahmed Khan contested election for the seats of Tehsil Nazim and Teshil Naib-Nazim of Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari held on 2-8-2001. The winning candidates were required to secure at least 319 votes. The appellants and the contesting respondents secured 280 votes and 313 votes respectively. The total number of votes polled was 633 out of which 40 votes were rejected by the Presiding Officer, Mailsi.
The Returning Officer held proceedings for consolidation of results on 3-8-2001. It transpired during the proceedings that 39 votes were rejected on the ground that the "marking aid rubber stamp" was used from wrong side. The Returning Officer, vide order dated 3-8-2001, declared the rejected votes as valid by holding that the voters clearly intended to vote for the candidate on whose symbol they had put the mark. Accordingly 20 and 19 votes were added to the votes obtained by the appellants and the contesting respondents respectively. The contesting respondents were declared elected by means of a Notification published on 4-8-2001. Feeling aggrieved the appellants challenged the election through Writ Petition No,6875 of 2001 but it was dismissed in limine on 7-8-2001, alongwith the aforementioned Writ Petition No,6876 of 2001, by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan.
4. Election for the seats of Zila Nazim and Naib Zila Nazim of District Rahimyar Khan was also held on 2-8-2001. The number of minimum votes required for winning the election was fixed as 1258. The petitioners Sardar Rafique Haider Khan Leghari and Chaudhry Zafar Iqbal Warraich secured 1097 votes while 1257 votes were secured by respondents Syed Ahmed Mehmood and Mian Abdul Sattar. Out of total votes cast at different Polling Stations 136 votes were rejected which were also excluded from the count by the Returning Officer at the time of consolidation of results. Since none of the candidates could secure the required number of votes the contesting respondents applied to the Chief Election Commissioner for recount of the rejected 136 votes. The Chief Election Commissioner took up the matter on 6-8-2001 and directed the District Returning Officer to recount the rejected votes and submit his report on the same day. The District Returning Officer recounted the rejected votes and declared those votes as valid which were marked by the wrong side of the "marking aid rubber stamp". The number of such votes was 110 out of which 46 and 64 votes were respectively added to the votes secured by the petitioner sand the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents having obtained 1321 votes were declared elected through the result published on 6-8-2001. The petitioners sought cancellation of decision of the District Returning Officer by moving an application before the Chief Election Commissioner but the same was turned down on 9-8-2001 with the observations that remedy may be sought before the Election Tribunal.
The petitioners instead of filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal challenged the proceedings of recount through Writ Petition No,4029 of 2001 but without any success as it was dismissed on 10-9-2001 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur with the following observations:-- "Though the petitioners themselves despite of the issuance of notice by the District Returning Officer did not appear at the time of recount, however, for their satisfaction and to redress their only grievance that recounting was made in their absence, they may approach District Returning Officer-respondent for recount of rejected ballot papers, if so advised, and the said respondent, if approached, by the writ petitioners, will recount 136 rejected ballot papers in the presence of all the contested candidates or their authorized agents and submit his report to the Chief Election Commissioner and the petitioners if are still dissatisfied with the recount, they may avail of the alternative remedy available under the law."
It was also held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the remedy of election petition provided by rule 70 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
5. Leave to appeal was granted in the above appeals in the following terms:-- "We have gone through sub-rule (6) of rule 34 and clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of sub-clause (iii) of sub-rule (4) of rule 39 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000. What meets the eye is that except for the mark of 'marking aid rubber stamp', the ballot papers are not to represent/indicate any other sign against or atop the appropriate column in the ballot papers. The findings recorded by the learned Judge in Chambers to the effect that the District Returning Officer was quite right in counting the ballot papers in question for favouring one or the other candidate in the elections although the same did not bear the mark of 'marking aid rubber stamp' and that writ petitions were not maintainable, require further examination."
6. Mr. Shehzad Jehangir, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the appeals relied on the case reported as a Presiding Officer v. Sadruddin Ansari and Lal Muhammad Bin Yousaf PLD 1967 SC 569 to contend that writ petitions filed by the appellants were maintainable. Elucidating the point he submitted that the action of the Returning Officer in declaring the rightly rejected votes as valid was tainted with mala fide and arbitrary and in their writ petitions the appellants had not prayed that the election be declared void but had sought enforcement of duty cast on the Returning Officer to declare them elected on the basis of the statements of count furnished by the Presiding Officers. According to him the question of maintainability of the writ petitions can be easily resolved in favour of the appellants in view of the observations made in the said authority that "where an officer clearly charged with the duty to declare a person, obtaining the highest number of votes at an election, elected refuses or neglects to do so upon mala fide or upon wholly irrelevant considerations or in a wanton, arbitrary or fanciful manner then I see no reason why the aggrieved party cannot seek this expeditious remedy under Article 98 of the Constitution to compel the officer concerned to declare him elected without having to resort to an election petition". He also referred to Jamal Shah v Election Commission PLD 1966 SC 1 to contend that a mala fide decision entitles the aggrieved party to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In this context it was also contended that the ultimate relief to be granted in these cases would be runoff election which the Tribunal is not empowered to grant, therefore, there is no other adequate or any remedy available. It was further contended that the remedy before the Election Tribunal was ousted by the very observations made in the impugned judgment that the question of intention of the voters determined by the Returning Officer was unexceptional. The learned counsel next contended that the 40 invalid votes having not been marked with the prescribed 'marking aid rubber stamp' were rightly rejected by the Presiding Officers. He referred to clause (ii) of sub-rule (6) of rule 34 and sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (iii) of sub-rule (4) of rule 39 of the Rules and contended with vehemence that both the provisions being followed by clauses entailing penal consequences were mandatory and their combined effect was that any mark other than the mark of the 'marking aid rubber stamp' is to be kept out of consideration. He went on to argue that the intention of the voters expressed in any manner other than the marking aid rubber stamp' is to be ignored. Reliance was placed on the cases reported as S. Yousaf Ali Shah v. Election Tribunal, West Pakistan PLD 1967 Pesh.
207; Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Wasim Sajjad PLD 1986 SC 178; Dr. Sher Afgan v. Aamar Hayat Khan 1987 SCM R 1987. It was lastly contended that the voters being elected representatives knew fully well as to how the ballot paper was to be marked. Mr.M. Bilal, learned counsel for the petitioners Sardar Rafique Haider Khan Leghari and another adopted the arguments on the legal points addressed by Mr. Shehzad Jehangir. He, however, added that the law on the subject does not provide for recounting of rejected votes after consolidation of results and declaration of run-off election, which in the present case was given wide publicity. It was further contended that neither the Chief Election Commissioner was empowered to order recounting of rejected votes at the stage when the same were recounted not the District Returning Officer was competent to recount the rejected votes. It was also contended that the exercise of recounting of the rejected votes was not only illegal but also void as it was carried out on the back of the petitioners who were not informed of the same in any manner. It was further contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was maintainable because the case-law placing embargo on challenging an election through a writ petition being based on Article 225 of the Constitution stood on a different footing and in the present case filing of an election petition was not a proper and adequate remedy in that if the election petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the whole election is declared void under rule 83(d) of the Rules then all the panels of candidates would become entitled to participate in the fresh election and the new concept of run off election will be defeated.
8. Mian Allah Nawaz, learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 and 5 in Appeal No,1864 of 2001 supported the impugned judgment by contending, at the outset, that the rejected votes were rightly declared valid by the Returning Officer because the prescribed mark has not been defined by the Rules, the provisions of rules 39 and 40 of the Rules are directory and not mandatory, the question of violation of secrecy of the ballot was not involved and it is by now firmly settled that the intention of the voter is the best criteria for determining the validity of a ballot paper. Reliance was placed on Irshad Ahmed v. Shafi Muhammad and 5 others 1981 CLC 1332; Sahibzada Abdul Latif v.
Sardar Khan 1996 SCM R 1496; Dr. Sher Afgan v. Aamer Hayat Khan 1987 SCM R 1987, Ch. Muhammad Abdullah v. Ch. Abdul Wakil and others PLD 1986 SC 487. It was also contended that provisions of section 16 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 have no nexus with the methodology of counting of votes and the relevant rules i,e, rules 34, 39 and 40 of the Rules being facilitative in nature are to be liberally construed. It was further contended that the writ petition was not maintainable.
9. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana, learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 and 5 in Appeal No,1865 of 2001 while adopting the arguments advanced by Mian Allah Nawaz submitted that the appellants had not challenged the order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 5-8-2001 whereby their petitions were dismissed on the ground that the factual and legal contentions raised by them may well be adjudged by the Election Tribunal. He further submitted that notwithstanding this glaring omission the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in rule 70 of Tthe Rules. According to him the said rule has provided a special and adequate remedy for challenging an election, therefore, a defeated candidate is bound to avail that remedy and cannot file a writ petition. Reliance was placed on Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javed Hashmi PLD 1989 SC 396; Bartha Ram v. Mehar Lal Bheel 1995 SCM R 684 and Mirza Hassan Mahmood v. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf and others 2000 SCM R 1678. It was finally submitted that an Election Tribunal is competent to order run off election.
10. Mr. Umar Ata Bandial, learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 in Civil Petition No,2690 of 2001 submitted that the Chief Election Commissioner was fully empowered to direct recounting of the rejected votes by the District Returning Officer in view of Article 2 of the Local Government 'Elections Order, 2000 whereby he was vested with the power and authority to take all such steps and measures and to adopt such procedure, do such acts, pass such orders, issue such directions and take all such ancillary, incidental and consequential steps as he may deem necessary for effectively carrying out the elections. Similarly, in view of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 12 of the Rules the District Returning Officer was bound to perform the duty of recounting. Of the rejected votes assigned to him by the Chief Election Commissioner. He further contended that District Rahimyar Khan was not included in the Districts where run off elections were scheduled to be held on 8-8-2001, vide Notification dated 6-8-2001, and it was a figment of imagination of the petitioners that in the present case run off election had been announced by the Chief Election Commissioner and the matter was given wide publicity. It was next contended that the Chief Election Commissioner was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the decision of the District Returning Officer because some rejected ballot papers cast in their favour were also declared as valid and they were beneficiaries of their own allegation. He further contended that without determining the question of violation of secrecy of the ballot papers and identification of the voters the Returning Officer had, no jurisdiction to exclude 136 votes from counting. He next contended that the rejected votes were rightly held valid by the District Returning Officer on the touchstone of intention of the voters. He also placed reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the two appeals. The last contention raised by him was that the writ petition was not maintainable as the remedy was available before the Tribunal.
11. Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Attorney-General for Pakistan addressed lengthy arguments on the question of maintainability of the writ petitions as well as other points raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The main thrust of his arguments was that a writ petition is not maintainable as rule 70 of the Rules provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition made by a candidate for that election, election petition is an adequate and efficacious remedy, the law on the subject of maintainability of a writ petition has been settled in Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi PLD 1989 SC 396; Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v.
Additional District and Sessions Judge 1994 SCM R 1299; Khuda Bakhsh v. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali 1997 SCM R 561 and Aftab Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCM R 1863 wherein it has been held that a writ petition is competent only where there is no legal remedy available to an aggrieved person and the order of the election functionary is patently illegal/without jurisdiction and the effect of which is to disenfranchise a candidate, the case of Sadruddin Ansari (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellants was distinguishable because in the present case the appellants have questioned the validity of the election and challenged the election of the returned candidates, the Election Tribunal can order run-. Off election as an ancillary relief, even if a mandatory provision of law is violated an election cannot be called into question except through an election petition where a remedy is available, rules 34 and 39 of the Rules are directory and not mandatory, the primary purpose of a mark on a ballot paper is to ensure that the intention of the voter is unambiguously expressed, a mark on the ballot paper which clearly reveals the intention of the voter but does not disclose his identity has to be accepted as a valid exercise of vote and interpretations which would disenfranchise voters ought to be avoided and strained interpretations of the law which would compel the State to hold fresh elections and burden the exchequer ought to be avoided.
12. The writ petitions in question were dismissed on the ground of maintainability as also on merits and for that very reason arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on both the facets. Be that as it may, the real controversy for determination is whether the writ petitions were maintainable. After considering the arguments on the pivotal controversy and going through the case-law cited at the Bar we are of the view that the writ petitions were not maintainable under rule 70 of the Rules as well as the law declared by this Court. It is thus unnecessary to express any opinion on any of the other contentions raised.
13. Rule 70 of the Rules is worded thus:-- "Election petition.--(1) No election shall be called in question by an election petition made by a candidate for that election (hereinafter referred to as the, petitioner)..
(2) An election petition shall be presented to the Tribunal appointed by the Chief Election Commissioner within thirty days of the publication in the official Gazette the name of the returned candidate and shall be accompanied by a receipt showing that the petitioner has deposited in a Scheduled Bank in favour of the Chief Election Commissioner, a sum of one thousand rupees, as fee 'for the petition.
(3) An election petition shall be presented by a petitioner and shall be deemed to have been presented, when it is delivered in person by the petitioner, or by a person authorised in this behalf by him, to the Tribunal appointed by the Chief Election Commissioner for the purpose."
14. Evidently, the above rule expressly prohibits any election held under the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 to be called in question except by an election petition made by a candidate for that election before the Election Tribunal. The appellants and the petitioners herein were candidates in the elections in which the contesting respondents were notified as 'returned candidates' by the competent authority under sub-rule (5) of rule 42 read with rule 55 of the Rules and the Election Tribunals have also been admittedly appointed by the Chief Election Commissioner through a notification issued under rule 73 of the Rules, therefore, there can be no dispute with the proposition that the writ petitions were squarely hit by the statutory prohibition contained in Rule 70 of the Rules. Moreover, the embargo on grant of any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in presence of an alternate remedy was fully attracted. The relief claimed in the writ petitions could be allowed in election petitions, therefore, an alternate remedy was available to the petitioners which is certainly an adequate and efficacious remedy in view of the scheme and contents of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 and the Rules.
15. Adverting to the case-law on the subject we would take up the case of Sadruddin Ansari (supra) first on which the learned counsel for the appellants has relied to contend that a writ petition is competent in such cases. In that case four ballot papers were declared invalid by the Presiding Officer as cross-marks were not put precisely on the dotted line on which the name of the candidate was written but were located between the dotted lines on which the names of the rival candidates were written. The defeated candidate filed a writ petition on the ground that the intent of voters was clear but had been disregarded by the Presiding Officer. The following observations were made with regard to exercise of writ jurisdiction in election cases:-- "Ordinarily the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would decline to interfere in case of election, because, it is desirable that the decision on a matter of disputed elections should as soon as possible become final and conclusive. But this is not the only reason. Another valid reason for so declining to interfere is because by so doing it would involve itself into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Tribunal rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative power. The fact, therefore, that an alternative remedy is provided by law should not only upon the above principles but upon general principles too disincline a Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in a case where such a remedy is still available. Though Article 98 of the Constitution has been couched in very wide terms it may safely be assumed that it incorporates within it orders or directions in the nature of those which could have been issued under the prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. So far as these writs are concerned the principle is undoubtedly universally accepted that it would not be in the exercise of sound judicial discretion to interfere where there is another 'adequate and specific legal remedy competent to afford relief upon the same subject-matter'. A relief of this nature is a supplementary remedy which does not supersede legal remedies but rather supplies the want of such a remedy. But it is not any and every kind of remedy which will defeat this Constitutional right.
In order that the other remedy should be sufficient to warrant refusal to exercise this jurisdiction it is necessary, that the other remedy must be 'both specific and adequate' in the sense that it must be 'competent to afford relief upon the very subject-matter of the application and be equally convenient, beneficial and effect".
' However, the writ petition was held to be maintainable because at the time when it was filed the Controlling Authority hearing an election petition had jurisdiction under rule 7 of the Basic Democracies (Election of Chairman) Rules, 1960 to declare an election to be void and to order a fresh election but it had no authority to declare the petitioner elected. During pendency of the petition rule 7 was amended and the Controlling Authority was invested with power to declare a candidate elected but it was held by the High Court that rule 7 was not retrospective and an amendment in the election petition would also not provide any relief. This Court had concurred with the reasons given by the High Court and it was observed:-- "Thus, at any rate, up to the date on which the petition under Article 98 was admitted for regular hearing there was no bar to its maintainability, for, there was no other specific or adequate remedy available which -would have given relief to the respondent No,1 upon the subject-matter of his application in an equally convenient, beneficial or effective manner." Obviously, the question of maintainability of the writ petitions in question cannot be resolved in favour of the appellants/petitioners on the grounds on which the writ petition in the said case was held to be maintainable.
16. The next case to be noted is the oft-quoted case of Javed Hashmi (supra). In that case the facts were that Javed Hashmi was a candidate in a bye-election from Constituency No,NA-120 Multan- cum-Khanewal. While the election process was going on and the polling had not taken place he filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Returning Officer whereby the already approved list of polling personnel was changed. A few other process-related reliefs were also claimed. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court but the appeal filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan was allowed by this Court on the ground that the writ petition was not competent in view of Article 225 of the Constitution as the election can be called into question only through an election petition.
The case of Sadruddin Ansari was referred to in that case and it was observed that in changing the list of polling personnel the Returning Officer had manifestly acted in contravention of the mandatory provisions of law, therefore, he could be compelled to discharge his duty under Article 199 of the Constitution. It was, however, held that even in such a case where a mandatory provision of law has been violated such a direction will not be issued if an election petition is competent. The observations in this context read as under:-- "In changing the already approved list of the polling personnel the Returning Officer had manifestly acted in contravention of the mandatory provisions of law. He could, therefore, be compelled to discharge his duty under Article 199 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, before issuing any such direction it is necessary to see whether the remedy by an election petition is not an adequate alternative remedy." It was also held that "there can only be challenge to the election by one mode, that is, by an election petition and that too after the process of the election is completed".
17. The above case was distinguished in the case reported as Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer and others 1994 SCM R 1299 with the following observations:- "The upshot of the above discussion is that generally in an election process the High Court cannot interfere with by invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction in view of Article 225 of the Constitution.
However, this is subject to an exception that where no legal remedy is available to an aggrieved party during the process of election or after its completion, against an order of an election functionary which is patently illegal/without jurisdiction and the effect of which is to defranchise a candidate, he can press into service Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The majority view in the case of Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi (supra) is not applicable. We may clarify that we do not intend to overrule the above majority view in the above case. The above case in fact is distinguishable from the instant case for the reasons already discussed hereinabove."
It will be pertinent to mention here that the name of the appellant in that case was dropped from the published list of the candidates on the ground that he was a loan defaulter and the writ petition filed by him was dismissed by the High Court in view of the ratio decidendi of the judgment in the case of Javed Hashmi. The appeal was allowed by this Court with the observations highlighted above as well the observations that grounds mentioned in section 68 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 do not admit the filing of an election petition by a candidate whose nomination papers had been illegally rejected and also could not participate in the elections on that account.
The view expressed in the above case was followed in Aftab Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCM R 1863.
18. The contention that the above authorities are not applicable on account of non-applicability of Article 225 of the Constitution is not tenable. Regardless of similarity of the prohibition contained in Article 225 and rule 70 of the Rules the principles of law enunciated in the above case-law, which provide guidance for dealing with election disputes and determining the availability and adequacy of the alternate remedy, have binding effect under Article 189 of the Constitution and govern all election matters whether Article 225 of the Constitution is applicable or not. As regards the dictum reflected in Jamal Shah (supra) suffice it to say that it does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and reliance on it is misplaced.
19. Now the point for determination is whether the remedy of an election petition is available to the appellants/petitioners or in other words whether the grievances of the appellants/petitioners can be redressed by the Election Tribunal. The main grievance of the appellants/petitioners is that the Returning Officers in the case of the appellants and the District Returning Officer in the case of the petitioners had declared valid the votes rejected by the Presiding Officers in the face of the mandatory provisions of sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (iii) of rule 39 of the Rules that those ballot papers shall be excluded from the count which bear any writing or any mark other than the official mark and the mark of 'marking aid rubber stamp' or no mark of 'marking aid rubber stamp' indicating the contesting candidate for whom the elector has voted. Another grievance expressed by the petitioners is that the District Returning Officer had recounted the votes after consolidation of results although he was duty bound to publish the names of the appellants/petitioners in the official Gazette as the returned candidates in view of sub-rule (5) of rule 42 read with rule 55 of the Rules. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the Election Tribunal is not empowered to redress the grievances of the appellants/petitioners and even if it is presumed to be so empowered it is not invested with power to grant the relief of run-off election i,e, fresh election in which the joint candidates securing the highest and the second highest number of votes shall be contestants. The result would be unsavoury as all the panels of candidates would become entitled to participate in the fresh election. The contentions are misconceived. As envisaged by rule 80 of the Rules the Election Tribunal may, upon the conclusion of the trial of an election petition, make an order: (a) dismissing the petition;
(b) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void; (c) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void and the petitioner or any other contesting candidate to have been duly elected; (d) declaring the election as a whole to be void. The grounds for declaring election as a whole to be void are contained in rule 83 of the Rules which reads as under:- "The Tribunal shall declare the election as a whole to be void if it is satisfied that the result of the election has been materially affected by reason of--
(a) the failure of any person to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance or the Election Rules; or
(b) the prevalence of extensive corrupt or illegal practice at the elections."
21. The pith and substance of the grievances of the appellants/petitioners is that the result of the election has been materially affected on account of the failure of the Returning Officers District Vehari and Mailsi as well as the District Returning Officer, Rahimyar Khan to comply with the mandatory provisions of sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (iii) of rule 39 of the Rules and failure of the District Returning Officer Rahimyar Khan to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 42 read with rule 55 of the Rules. The grievances of the appellants/petitioners, thus squarely fall within the ambit of clause (a) of rule 83 of the Rules and as such can be redressed by the Election Tribunal which in the event of declaring the election as a whole to be void can make any appropriate order, as a consequential relief, within the purview and framework of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 and the Rules including an order for run-off elections. In the light of what has been stated above, both the appeals and the petition are dismissed with no order as to costs.