1. This is an application moved by learned counsel for respondent No.1 under section 62 read with section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 praying therein that the petition may be dismissed as the same is not maintainable having not been presented/filed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Notification No.FI(7)/85-Cord., dated 17-3-1985 and that the Annexures to the petition have not been verified in terms of section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ali Ahmed Junejo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Lakho has referred to section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. He has also referred to Notification, dated 17-3-1985 issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan whereby procedure for filing election petitions has- been laid down. According to clause 4 of the said notification no witness is to be examined unless his affidavit in evidence has been filed alongwith the petition or if so required by the Tribunal. He has further contended that the documents annexed with the petition have not been verified in accordance with section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
4. Mr. Ali Ahmed Junejo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that these are mere technicalities and are curable and in consequence of such defects, the petition cannot be dismissed by the Tribunal. He stated that the petitioner has already filed affidavits in evidence of his witnesses which are on record.
5. Clauses (1) and (2) of the Notification dated 17th March, 1985 pertaining to the procedure of trial of Election Petitions as prescribed by the Election Commission, inter alia, provide that every Election Petition shall be accompanied by all such documents and affidavits of witnesses as are desired to be produced by the petitioner. As soon as the petition is presented before the concerned Authorities in. The Election Commission, the same shall be processed by the Secretary, Election Commission and in case it does not fulfill the requirements, as stated above, it shall not be entertained and the petitioner shall be informed accordingly.
6. However, if the petition is found to be 'in order, the Secretary shall fix the date of hearing.
7. From the bare perusal of the above clauses, it is abundantly clear that the exercise of scrutiny before the Election Petition is entertained, is the function and responsibility of Secretary, Election Commission. It is also pertinent to note that as per provisions of section 56 of the Act, 1976, learned Chief Election Commissioner is competent to dismiss the petition if he finds that any provision of sections 52, 53 or 54 of the Act has not been complied with and in case the Election Petition is not dismissed the Chief Election Commissioner shall refer it for trial to an Election Tribunal. In this case the process of scrutiny was completed by the Secretary, Election Commission and the petition was entertained. Consequently the petition was referred by the Honourable Chief Election Commissioner to this Tribunal for adjudication. This Tribunal has been conferred with the powers to dismiss and Election Petition in summary manner if the provisions of section 54 or section 55 of the Act have not been complied with or when the petitioner has failed to make further deposit as required under subsection (4) of section 62 of the Act.
8. Obviously, the procedure laid down by the Election Commission under section 62 of the Act is primarily meant for expeditious adjudication of the Election Petitions. Non--. Compliance of procedural requirements such as non-filing of affidavit and the documents has not been made a ground for dismissal of an Election Petition as even the provisions or the notification as pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 are apparently directory in nature, having no consequential provision, thus will not render the Election Petition liable to dismissal.
9. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Mst. Arshad Bi through Mst. Fatima Bi and others v. Maula Bakhsh through Mst. Ghulam Safoor and others 2003 SCM R 318 that technicalities shall not create hurdle in the way of substantial justice and they are not to be interpreted to thwart the same. A heavy duty is cast upon the Courts to do substantial justice and not to deny the same on mere technicalities.
10. Similar view was taken in the case reported as Riaz Hussain and others v. Muhammad Akbar and others 2003 SCM R 181 where it was held that mere techni--calities, unless offering any insurmountable hurdle should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice and the logic of words should yield to the logic of realities.
11. For the above reasons, the application is dismissed.