| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 1311 1996 SLD 1311 1996 CLC 1574 |
Election Tribunal, Punjab
Election Petitions Nos. 85 and 86. of 1993, decision dated:9-05-1996
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, ELECTION TRIBUNAL
Nafeer A. Malik for Petitioner. Tariq Latif, Provincial Election Commissioner. Dr. A. Basit and Mohsin Abbas Naqvi for
Respondents (on 2-5-1996) for
Respondent No. 3. Bilal Hassan Minto for
Respondent No. 47
Election Petitions Nos. 85 and 86. of 1993, decision dated:9-05-1996
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, ELECTION TRIBUNAL
Nafeer A. Malik for Petitioner. Tariq Latif, Provincial Election Commissioner. Dr. A. Basit and Mohsin Abbas Naqvi for
Respondents (on 2-5-1996) for
Respondent No. 3. Bilal Hassan Minto for
Respondent No. 47
Ch. FATEH JANG
VS
PUNJAB ELECTION COMMISSION and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------S. 52---Election petition against fifth seat reserved for Christians---Election Tribunal on basis of factual controversy between contesting parties proceeded to order recounting of votes in respect of respective constituencies to ascertain whether allegations in election petitions were correct and to determine whether result had been correctly tabulated by Returning Officer in accordance with Form XVI-A received - from . Assistant Returning Officers---Election Commission, while recounting did not disturb validity of votes as determined by Presiding Officer in the re-count---All the contesting parties having raised similar objections to the votes counted in favour of the others, such fact goes a long to show that statement of Provincial Election Commissioner that he did not disturb validity of .votes as determined by Presiding Officer was correct---As a result of recounting, two contesting candidates were found to have secured more votes than the returned candidate---Candidate who had secured the highest number of votes was declared as elected in place of returned candidate for the fifth Christian seat. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah v. Ch. Abdul Wakil and others PLD 1986 SC 487 and Harchand Rai v. Manga Ram and others 1986 CLC 985 ref. (b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-- ----S. 38(4)(c)(iii)---Ballot without stamp mark---Validity---Ballot-paper without marking stamp could not be counted in favour of any of the contesting candidates. (c) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)--- ----S. 52---Election petition---Application by returned candidate .for adequate opportunity to address arguments on merits---Election petitions were fixed for specified date and it was made clear to the parties that in case transfer application (which had been moved for transfer of Election petition) was dismissed -by Chief Election Commissioner, they should conclude. their arguments on that date---Counsel for contesting candidates made their submissions while counsel for returned candidate who was present neither advanced any arguments nor made any request for opportunity to address arguments---Election…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492