Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Order dated 18-9-2001 passed by the Election Tribunal, Attock, whereby respondent No,4 was declared as returned candidate for the seat of Union Council No,30.
The petitioner made the prayer in following terms: "Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted, the Orders of Election Tribunal dated 18-9-2001 declaring the respondent No,4 as to be returned candidate for General Councillor seat of Union Council No,30 instead of petitioner, who was duly elected and notified is illegal due to failure of exercise of jurisdiction, based on patent illegality of Election Tribunal condemning the petitioner unheard, not examining the entire record and all aspects of the election of Union Council No,30 Rawalpindi and the same may kindly be set aside being void and illegal exercise of jurisdiction.
It is further prayed that the respondents No,2, 3 and 12 may kindly be directed to produce all the election record including statement of accounts of ballot papers prepared by the Presiding Officer in accordance with Law alongwith ballot .papers regarding the said Union Council for recounting in the High Court."
2. The elections of general councillors for Constituency No,30, Rawalpindi were scheduled and held on 2-7-2001. Thepetitioner secured 341 votes and was declared as returned candidate. Amongst other candidates respondent No,4 secured 340 votes.
3. Respondent No,4 Raja Javed Akhtar filed an election petition before Election Tribunal, Attock inter alia challenging the election on the plea that at Polling Station No,44 of said Union Council, he secured 23 votes but in the final result prepared by the respondent No,2 instead of 23 votes (2) votes were mentioned.
4. The Election Tribunal at the outset passed an Order for re-counting of votes and summoned the record. In the process of re-counting, the plea of respondent No,4 was found correct and he was declared to have secured total 361 votes.
5. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for recounting of the votes.
6. After hearing the parties, the record was summoned to examine the correctness of the re- counting. Thescrutiny, of the record reveals that Form No,XIII., which was prepared by the Presiding Officer and which bears the sighatures of agents of the parties showed 23 votes secured by respondent No,4. However, when the result was consolidated by Returning Officer in Form XIV instead of 23 votes only two (2) votes were mentioned. The errors is apparent on the face of the record. It was a clerical error and votes of respondent No,4 were actually 23 in number. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly held that respondent No,4 had secured 361 votes instead of 340, which were shown against his name in the consolidated result. The difference of 21 votes was accordingly corrected by the Election Tribunal.
7. Initially when the result was declared, the respondent No,4 was shown to have secured 340 votes, whereas the petitioner had secured 341 votes. After removing the error, the votes of respondent No,4 were increased to 361, therefore, on the basis of votes higher than the petitioner, the Election Tribunal has rightly declared respondent No,4 as successful candidate.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Election Tribunal was not having jurisdiction for re-counting and this power is only vested with the Presiding Officer. I am afraid that this argument of the learned counsel is not well founded. The Election Tribunal, enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions relating to the elections and also enjoyed plenary jurisdiction of re-counting, which originally vested with 'the Presiding Officer. The powers vested in Election Tribunal are plenary as well as Appellate. It would be anomalous to hold that the Election Tribunal lacks jurisdiction of re-counting. I accordingly hold that the Election Tribunal enjoyed the jurisdiction of re-counting of votes, which vested with the Presiding Officer under the Local Government Elections Rules,2000.
9. The next plea advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the record, which' is produced before this Court is spurious, showing that respondent No,4 secured 23 votes. The petitioner before filing the present writ petition never raised this plea before any authority that the record was tempered with. Faced with the ground reality, the petitioner made endeavour to doubt the record. This record was produced from the custody of the election authority. The same record was placed before the Election Tribunal. It was never objected to. Therefore at this juncture I do not find any substance in the plea raised by the petitioner. Accordingly the same is repelled.
Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of any substance. The same is accordingly dismissed and the Order of the Election Tribunal dated 18-9-2001 is up held.