Law:

Section: 27

  North West Frontier province Local Government Ordinance (IV of 1979)--- ----S. 27(1)---Election petition---Elected member's election was challenged on ground that he was not entered as a voter in the ward from which he had contested election, and thus he was not possessed of qualification to contest from that ward---Provision of S. 27(1), North-West Frontier Province Local Government Ordinance, 1979 does not speak of a ward but lays down that if a person intends to contest election to a Local Council his name should appear on the electoral rolls of the Local Area Union Council from which returned member contested election consisted of two wards; thus elected member could contest election to that Union Council from any ward as his name was entered on the electoral rolls of the Local Area of that Union Council. North-West Frontier Province Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979--- -----: 32(2)(c)---Absence of signatures of Presiding Officer on ballot papers--Effect---Absence of signature of Presiding Officer would not make the ballot paper invalid if it carried the official stamp. Muhammad Abdullah v. Abdul Wakil P L D 1986 S C 487 rel. North-West Frontier Province Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979--- -----. 32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Election Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter had correctly appreciated the points involved in dispute between parties, and there being no illegality or irregularity in the judgment of Tribunal, High Court declined to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction. Salahuddin for Petitioner. Muhammad Tehmash Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th April, 1990. JUDGMENT   The petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 4 had contested election to Ward No.2./1 of Union Council Spin Khak in the Local Council Election of 1987. Maroof Shah respondent No.1 was declared elected. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.l by an election petition on two fold grounds; firstly, that the respondent 1No.l was not entered as a voter in Ward No.2/1: and secondly, five votes polled in favour of the respondent No.1 did not bear the…