' The petitioners, on the, one hand and the respondents Nos.1 to 4, on the other, in the form of panels contended election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No,119. Pasrur-I, District .Sialkot. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 were declared returned. The petitioners filed an election petition challenging the said election. One of the grounds raised in the election petition was that valid votes of the petitioners have been illegally declared invalid and conversely invalid Votes cast in favour of the respondents Nos. I and 2 have been illegally declared valid. This petition was contested by the said respondents Nos.1 and 2. The learned Election Tribunal, as per its impugned judgment dated 24-7-2001, vide an order dated 30-6-2001, ordered re-counting only to determine the plea of the petitioners that their symbol was missing on the ballot papers used on some of the polling stations. On 24-7-2001, the learned Election Tribuna: commenced the said proceedings. The impugned judgment then narrates that the petitioners insisted that bags of Polling Station Nos.274 and 276 be opened first. This prayer was granted and the bags were desealed. The learned Election Tribunal then observed that the envelope containing the valid votes of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with the symbol "Crescent" was opened from its back joint. The votes were examined and it was found that "Peacock" i,e, the symbol of the petitioners was very much there. Then the learned Tribunal found that there were 18 votes in the said envelopes which were double stamped and ought to have been rejected. Thereafter the learned Tribunal opened the envelope which' was found intact containing 326 votes of the petitioners. It was then observed that 5, votes were found whereupon the symbol 'of "Peacock" .Was missing. Thereafter Polling bag of Polling Station No,276 was opened. The envelope containing 461 votes of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was opened and some 36 double marked votes were found therein. Upon the insistence of the petitioners the learned Tribunal counted the said votes and found that instead of figure written on the envelopes 461 void votes he found 337 votes in the envelope. The votes in the petitioners envelope were found to be 243. The learned Election Tribunal then refers to the ballot account statement to observe that not less than 717 votes were cast at the said Polling Station whereas more than 100 votes are missing. Therefore the bag of Polling Station No, 274 was again opened and it was found that instead of 441 only 312 votes are there in the envelope in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The learned Tribunal, at this stage, stopped proceedings and while observing that since the petitioners are insisting for the re-count of the votes present in bags of the said two particular Polling Stations they are guilty of tampering with the records in connivance with the In charge the Treasury Office, Pasrur. A direction was issued to the Assistant Election Commissioner, Sialkot to register a case against the petitioners as also the said Secretary, Treasury Office, Pasrur. Therefore the petition was disposed of with the observation that respondents Nos.1 and 2, shall hold office as elected members only if the investigation or the trial is concluded positive, what shall commence forthwith upon registration of F.I.R., under report to this Tribunal. In case the investigation and the trial result comes negative, there shall be fresh election and the petition in that case be deemed accepted. The Election Commission and the Government is informed accordingly.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Tribunal has proceeded to abdicate his jurisdiction in favour of the Police Officers and this act of the learned Tribunal is without lawful authority. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, has tried to support the impugned order of the learned Tribunal by stating that in the circumstances noted in the impugned judgment, the said act of the learned Tribunal is valid.
3. I have already stated in detail the proceedings as reflected in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. To my mind, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to act in a manner not prescribed by law while making the result of the election petition dependent upon the investigation to be conducted by the Police. The jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal is well-defined and does not admit of any ambiguity whatsoever. The matters are to be dealt with in accordance with provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Evidence is to be recorded and thereafter the petition is to be decided and the rule 80 of the P.L.G.E. Rules, 2000 clearly lays down the orders that can be passed by a learned Tribunal while finally dismissing of the Election Petition. The grounds for passing the orders mentioned in rule 80 (b), (c) and (d) have also been stated, in detail in rules 81, 82 and 83 of the said Rules, respectively. Of course, the powers of the learned Tribunal as defined in rule 78 of the said Rules are there. However, these are to be exercised in the manner prescribed. The exercise of the said powers is completely independent of the jurisdictional parameters in the matter of final decision of an election petition by the learned Election Tribunal. Needless to state that there is absolutely no mandate in any law governing Civil Courts or persons vested with powers of Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 'to authorise a Police Officer to decide the matter pending before the Court. The impugned order of the learned Tribunal, therefore, is wholly without jurisdiction and is without lawful authority and accordingly is declared as such.
4. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24-7-2001 of the learned Tribunal is set aside. The result would be that the delection petition filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Tribunal who shall proceed further in the case, give a. Chance to the both parties to lead evidence for and against the contentions raised in the election petition and thereafter to decide the same in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal of course, has and shall have authority to confront the petitioners with the findings recorded by him in them impugned judgment and to give them a chance to show cause and to explain the same and after hearing them in the manner prescribed by law to pass such orders as he deems proper.
5. No order as to the cost.
6. Parties to appear before the learned Election Tribunal on 23-5-2002.
7. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Election Tribunal.