Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 60 1966 SLD 60 1966 PLD 492
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1966, decision dated: 10th February 1966.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
M.B. Zaman Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Gul Muhammad Butt Advocate Supreme Court with him), instructed by Khawaja Nazir Ahmad & Co., Senior Attorney for Appellant. Nasim Hasan Shah Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khawaja Advocate, Supreme C

AKBAR ALI

VS

(1) RAZIURRAHMAN KHAWAJA, (2) THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA DIVISION, (3) ABDUL WAHID, PRESIDING OFFICER, AND (4) IMTIAZ AHMAD SAHI, MAGISTRATE, 1st CLASS, LYALLPUR, RETURNING OFFICER, JARANWALA

Law:

Section:

(a) Electoral College Act (IV of 1964), S. 43-(Spoilt ballot papers, cancellation of)-Ballot papers cast, wantonly rejected at stage of count as "spoilt"-Such papers `free from any defect "­Presiding officer's or Tribunal's decision rejecting papers not sacrosanct-Can be called in question in High Court by application under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-[Electoral College Act (IV of 1964), S. 84-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 171 (1)]. Where the Presiding Officer had acted wantonly in cancelling six ballot papers which were free from .any defect to attract the application of section 43 of the Act: Held, that the reasoning by the Tribunal that the ballot papers had been cancelled before they were cast was not only a convenient surmise, but fully belied by intrinsic evidence found in the fact that if they had been cancelled they would have been returned to the Presiding Officer and not allowed to remain in the custody of the voters and that an entry to that effect would have been made in Form XIV against item 6(a). If an election authority or tribunal acts in this fashion whether under the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act or the Electoral College Act the decision in Mian Jamal Shah's case would not be an authority for the view that their decisions are sacrosanct and may not be called in question in the High Court. There was more than one reason for denying in the instant case that degree of finality to the decision of the Tribunal which would attach to the decision of a Judge of the High Court acting as a member of the Commission under the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act. The High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Presiding Officer excluding from count ballot papers as "spoilt" which, however, were free from any, defect, and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the election petition preferred from that order as without lawful authority. Mian Jamal Shah v. The Member Election Commission etc. P L D 1966 S C 1 considered. (b) Electoral College Act (IV of 1964), S. 45 read with S. 40­No inconsistency between provisions of S. 45 and S. 40-Ballot paper can only be rejected if it bears no official…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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