AJK Legislative Assembly (Election Ordinance), 1970

  1. Section 13 — Obligations of Returning Officer and Chief Election Commissione — Strict compliance of codal provision, mandatory — State functionaries bound to perform in accordance with law — The Returning Officer appears to have ignored the objections raised from the respondents’ side and accepted the nomination papers although sufficient evidence was available and the Chief Election Commissioner appears to have dismissed the appeal of respondent on the ground that he has short time in which detailed inquiry cannot be conducted. It among others, is clear violation of the Election Ordinance particularly section 13(3). It hardly needs any mention here that in presence of codal provision and even under duty of a State functionary the performance is to be made according to law, rules or regulations which provide for doing of a particualr thing in a particular manner. Held: The State functionary right from the President of AJK down to the smallest cog of the State machinery are not to work only as a post office. Even a process server, who is directed to deliver a packet to some designed person has to get receipt or at least deliver the same in presence of a witness. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain 2010 SCR 329 (F)
  2. Section 13(3) Returning officer — Powers and duties — Rejection or acceptance of nomination papers —  The respondent filed objections against the nomination papers of appellant and specifically pleaded that the appellant is not matriculate. Held: The returning office was under legal obligations to determine that valid nomination has been made and for this purpose even he was not required to have written objections from the other side — While making the scrutiny the Returning officer under section 13(3) of the Election Ordinance has to conduct such summary inquiring as he may think fit and he can reject nomination papers — Further held: The Returning cannot avoid the codal duty on the ground that no objections have been filed by any rival candidate. He can move at his own to make the process of election as fair and transparent. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain & 9 others 2010 SCR 329 (D)
  3. Section 24 — It was proved that there was no polling at Polling Stations 9, 16 and 40 and 42. According to the Ordinance polling should have been held at these stations and all voters should have been allowed to exercise their franchise in a free and impartial manner but they were not allowed to do so. In such a situation there should have been repolling on these stations in accordance with section 24 of the Ordinance. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (CC)
  4. Absence of Polling — Effect of — Section 24 was violated in so far as repolling was not ordered. Absence of polling is contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance which visualised the holding of elections on all the polling stations. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (DD)
  5. Section 24-A — Powers only exercisable when election affected — The power available under this section is exercisable in a case where fresh poll would not affect the result of the election but the Tribunal in the present case has held that election has been affected materially.In the circumstances. Held: The provisions of the Ordinance and rules have not been complied with. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (EE)
  6. Section 43 — The Tribunal has power to make orders for opening of the packets of counterfoils and certificates or inspection of any counted ballot papers — while carrying into the effect an order of the Tribunal for the inspection of counted ballot papers, care shall be taken that no vote shall be disclosed until it has been held by the Tribunal to be invalid. Held: It is only the Election Tribunal which has power to declare a vote as invalid. The Inquiry officer or commission has no power to declare a vote as invalid. Sr. M. H .v. Election Tribunal 2015 SCR 75 (A) 1999 SCMR 284 ref.
  7. U/s. 49 of the Ordinance, no election shall be called in question — The respondent has been notified as successful candidate — The only remedy available to petitioner is to seek redressal of his grievance through election petition — Held: The P.L.A. not maintainable. Ch. Arshad Hussain v. Rukhsar Ahmad & others 2006 SCR 85 (A)
  8. Section 49 — interpretation of — writ against interim orders of Election Tribunal — in the majority judgment the  opinion regarding status of the provisions of section 49 and its effect is formed on basis of the case reported as PLD 1986 SC AJ&K 120 — Held: the referred judgment due to having distinguishable facts is not fully applicable — in the referred case, the basic question involved was the finality of the orders to be immuned from judicial review and not the competency of writ against the interim orders, of the Election Tribunal — According to the celebrated principle of law jurisdiction upon the Courts can be conferred by the subordinate law and same like can be altered or changed — the constitution has not conferred jurisdiction regarding election petitions upon the High Court. Therefore, it is not a question that through subordinate law any constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court has been restricted or changed. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (W)
  9. Section 49 — AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Section 44 — Election Petition — jurisdiction of High Court — election petitions are filed under section 49 which provides that no election shall be called in question except by election petition — The jurisdiction for calling in question the elections is vested with the Election Tribunal and no other Court has power to entertain the election petitions — The Elections Ordinance is a subordinate law and subordinate legislation cannot override the provisions of the Constitution. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (N) PLD 1985 AJ&K 83 rel.
  10. Ss. 49, 58 — An Election Tribunal is a Tribunal and not a Court — Election petitions are to be disposed of by an Election Tribunal and not by a Court — This section provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition made by the candidate, which by necessary implication creates a bar that no Court possesses the jurisdiction to hear an election dispute. In section 58 it is provided that he election petition shall be tried, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure for the trial of suits under the C.P.C. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (L)
  11. S. 50 — Who is to be arrayed as a party in the election petition — Question of — This section lays down the persons who have to be arrayed as a party and then in Section 51 reference in clause (B) is to the same persons about whom it has been enjoined by section 50 that they will be added as parties — The contents of sub-section (A) of section 50 show that it is enough that all ‘contesting candidates’ should be arrayed as respondents in the election petition — But it is provided in clause (B) that any ‘other candidate’ against whom an allegation is made has also to be arrayed as a party. — The question as to who is the ‘other candidate’ the answer is referred to in clause (ii) of section 2 of the Ordinance which lays down that a candidate means ‘a person proposed as a candidate for election as a member. Raja Abdul Qayyum  v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (B)
  12. S. 50 — Provides that all contesting candidates must be made party to the petition but if there is allegation of corrupt and illegal practice against any other candidate he shall also be a necessary party. The names of the persons who are alleged to have committed corrupt and illegal practice need not be mentioned. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (D)
  13. Definition of the Word “Candidate” — The word ‘candidate’ is comprehensive and includes not only contesting candidates who are referred to in clause (A) of Section 50 but also a person who was proposed as a candidate but subsequently withdrew from the contest in pursuance of section 15 of the Ordinance or whose nomination papers were rejected under section 13 after scrutiny — All those persons who have been proposed for membership of the Assembly are referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 as ‘candidate. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (C)
  14. Sections 50, 51, 59 & 63 — Representation of People Act, 1976 — sections 54, 55, 63 & 67 — Parimateria Sections — Election Petition — verification of schedule & annexure — Sections 51 (3) & 55(3) of Act, 1976 are parimateria — Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that the provisions of section 55(3) are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the provisions entails upon the penal consequence of dismissal of the election petition — Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as 2000 SCMR 250  held that every petition and every schedule or annexure shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code for verification of pleadings, which is provided under Order VI, Rule 15, CPC. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (C) 2000 SCMR 250, PLD 2007 SC 362, PLJ 2003 SC (AJK) 145 rel.
  15. Sections 50, 51, 59 & 63 — Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 — Sections 54, 55, 63 & 67 — Parimeteria sections — writ against interim orders passed by the Election Tribunal — competency of — alternate remedy — The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Raza Hayat Hiraj’s  on the parimeteraia provisions after detailed deliberation while taking into consideration the cases  reported as PLD 1966 SC 1, PLD 1968 Lah. 1378, PLD 1991 SC 691, PLD 1989 SC 396, PLD 1981 SCMR 1107, PLD 1963 (w.l) Lah. 575, PLD 2005 SC 52, PLD 2005 SC 600, PLD 2010 SC 943, PLD 2014 Balochistan 152, PLD 2009 SC 644, PLD 2008 SC 779, AIR 1988 SC 915, AIR 1978 SC 851, AIR 1955 SC 233, AIR 1999 SC 1723, 1997 SCM 941, PLD 1957 SC 91, 1998 SCMR 1597, 1998 SCMR 328,  2011 SCMR 1813, 2014 CLC 776, 1999 SCMR 689 and 1994 SCMR 1299 concluded that the interlocutory order passed by the election Tribunal are not amenable in writ jurisdiction — Supreme Court of Pakistan held that against an interim order passed by the main reason of availability of alternate adequate remedy of appeal under the provision of section 67 of Act 1976 — Held: the main reason for holding that the interim orders passed by the Election Tribunal are not amenable in writ jurisdiction is the availability of alternate remedy — the question of dismissal of election petition on failure to verify the petition according to the statutory requirement dealt with by the Election  Tribunal, still remains open to be called in question in appeal — Held: in presence of alternate adequate remedy, writ jurisdiction is not barred by subordinate legislation but the constitutional provisions. Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (S&T) M. Raza Hayat Hiraj & others vrs.The Election Commission of Pakistan & others rel.
  16. Sections 50,51(3), 58 (9), 59 & 63 — dismissal of election petition under section 59 — appeal against —  argument that when an election petition is dismissed under section 59, appeal is not competent under section 63, rather writ  may be filed — under section 59 an election petition is to be dismissed in non-compliance of sections 50 & 51(3) or section 58(4) at any time during the trial of election petition — when an objection is raised with regard to maintainability of an election petition for non-compliance of a mandatory provision, the Court/Tribunal should decide such preliminary objection — when an election petition is dismissed whether under section 59 or section 63, only one appeal is provided against the dismissal, i.e. under section 63(3). Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (K)
  17. Section 51 — election petition — verification of — affidavit of contents of the election petition filed —  affidavit on a plain paper available but not attested by any authorized person — under section 51, it is mandatory that the election petition and the schedules or annexures be signed and verified by the petitioner himself — petitioner neither verified the petition nor the annexures or schedules thereof — election petition has rightly been dismissed. Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (Z)
  18. Section 51 — election petition — verification & attestation of — election petition is verified and signed by the petitioner as well as his counsel and also attested by the oath commissioner — Certified copies of record annexed with the election petition have been signed and verified by the petitioner but the same have not been attested by the Oath Commissioner — The verification and attestation of the annexures depend upon their nature — If the annexure goes to the roots of the allegations or discloses any additional allegation of substantive character or furnish better particulars of allegations made in the petition, in that case, Held: verification is required — If the annexures are the documents the particulars of which have already been referred and which do not go to the roots of the allegations nor discloses any additional allegation of substantive character or furnish better particulars of allegations made in the petition — Further held: requires not to be verified. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (AA) 2010 SCMR 1877, 2011 CLC  1271 & 2013 YLR 2471 rel.
  19. Section 51 — election petition — verification & attestation of annexures & schedules thereof — the contents of the election petition clearly reveals that the relevancy of these documents has been clearly mentioned in the memo of election petition which is duly verified on oath — Held: If substantially, the requirement of verification is fulfilled, then this procedural provision cannot be channelized into traps as if a game of chess is being played. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (BB) PLD 1985 Lah. 203 rel.
  20. S. 51 (B) — The word “parties”occurring in it plainly refers to parties to the election petition — The word ‘persons’ has not been used; therefore, by no analogy the word ‘parties’ can be construed to mean a person other than a party to the petition. R. A. Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (A)
  21. Section 51 (3) — Every election petition and every schedule or annexure to the election petition has to be signed by the petitioner and verified as laid down in CPC. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (A)
  22. Section 51 (3) — election petition — verification through separate affidavit — argument that a separate affidavit in support of the contents of election petition is sufficient — Held: the attestation of verification by any Court or Magistrate, any officer or other person appointed in this behalf by the High Court or any officer appointed by any other Court or provincial Government is mandatory and non-attestation merits dismissal of election petition — Further held: A separate affidavit is not a substitute of verification of the election petition. Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore 2015 SCR 159 (H) 2000 SCMR 250, PLD 2007 SC 362,  PLD 2005 SC 600, 2014 SCMR 1015 & PLJ 2003 SC (AJ&K) 145  rel.
  23. Section 51 (3) — election petition — verification of annexures — non-verification of annaxures, which are part of the official record, whether original or certified copies, do not require verification and attestation. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (I)  PLD 2004 SC 570, 2011 CLC 1171, 2013 MLD 1825 & 2013 YLR 2471 ref.
  24. Section 51 (3) — election petition — verification and attestation of annexures & schedules forming part of petition — argument that the attestation of annexures forming part of the election petition by the authority referred in section 139, CPC, is mandatory — two types of documents/ annexures/ schedules annexed with the election petition — some are part of public record — whereas some annexures or schedules annexed with the election petition in support of additional allegations of substantive character or at least furnish better particulars of allegation — Held: the annexures which are part of the public record or original or certified copies of record, need not be verified by the petitioner and need no attestation by the authorities referred to in section 139, CPC. Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (J) PLD 1967 SC 467 rel.
  25. Sections 51 (3) & 59 — Code of Civil Procedure — Section 139 & Order VI, rule 15 — Oaths Act,1970 — Section 7 — High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 — Rr — 88-90 — election petition — verification of procedure — non-compliance — effect of — Non-compliance of provisions of Section 51(3) results in the penal consequence in terms of Section 39 — no penal provision is provided for non-compliance of order VI, Rule 15, CPC — oath is to be administered by a person authorized to administer the oath, under section 139, CPC — oath on affidavit is to be administered by any Court or Magistrate or any notary to be appointed or any officer or other person whom the High Court may appoint in this behalf or any officer appointed by any other Court generally or specially empowered by the Govt. — under section 7 of the Oaths Act, all the oaths and affirmations made under section 5 shall be administered according to such forms as the High Court may prescribe — Rules 88, to 90 of Chapter XV of High Court Procedure Rules, provide the form of oath. — under Rule 88, an affidavit intended for using in the Court may be sworn in before any authority or officer or the officer of the Court or before the Presiding Officer of the Court or before the Magistrate or a Sub-Registrar or before the Oath Commissioner appointed in this behalf — Held: a combined reading of section 139, CPC, section 7 of the Oaths Act, Order VI, Rule 15 and provisions of Rule 88 to 90 of the High Court Procedure Rules makes it mandatory that verification shall have to be strictly in accordance with Order VI, Rule 15, CPC, and to be attested by a person authorized in this behalf, as referred in section 139, CPC. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (B)
  26. Sections 51 (3) & 59 — AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Section 44 — Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan — Article 225 — CPC — Order VI, Rule 15 — Section 139 — Oaths Act — Section 7 — High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 — Rr 88 to 90 — Election Petition — writ against interlocutory order of Election Tribunal — There is no constitutional bar in Interim Constitution Act, 1974, like Article 225 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 — The superior Courts of Pakistan have observed that the bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 225 may not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition involving the question of law or interpretation of law in respect of election dispute — Held: the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered on the basis of bar contained in Article 225, are not applicable — There is long standing practice in Azad Jammu & Kashmir that writ petitions against the interim orders of the Election Tribunal are entertained — the provisions of section 51(3) are mandatory and verification of election petition is to be attested by the authority referred to in section 139, CPC, read with Order VI, Rule 15, CPC, for verification of pleadings and section 7 of the Oaths Act, read with Rules 88, to 90 of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, is mandatory and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings in the election petition against the express provisions of the Elections Ordinance — Dismissal of application for dismissal of election petition under section 59, leaves the aggrieved person without any remedy and filing of appeal after the decision of election petition is not an efficacious remedy, therefore, held ,the writ petition is competent. Held: there is no bar in maintaining a writ petition against the interim order passed by the Election Tribunal. The writ petition against interim order is competent. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (P,Q & R)
  27. Sections 51 (3), 59(2) and 59 (3) & 60 — the case titled Ch. Arshad Hussain vrs Rukhsar Ahmed & 9 others (Civil appeals No. 90 & 101 of 2006, decided on 19.11.2009),wherein it was held that the amendment in election petition under section 59 (3) can be made which means that the defects of the formal nature can be cured by amendment even at alter stage or ensuring a fair and effective trial and for determing the real questions in issue except raising new ground, has been distinguished. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (D,E&G)
  28. Sections 51, 55, 59 & 63 — AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — Section 44 — Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 — Article 199 — writ against interim orders of Election Tribunal — competency of — alternate remedy by way of appeal — The constitutional conditions for exercise of writ jurisdiction under section 44 are same as of Article, 199 — on consideration of Article 199 the Supreme Court  of Pakistan held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised i.e against interim orders of Election Tribunal — For exercise of writ jurisdiction, the foremost constitutionally required condition is absence of alternate adequate remedy provided by law — under section 63,  the law has provided alternate, adequate remedy by way of appeal. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (U)
  29. Section 55 — Representation of People Act, 1976 — sub-section 1(A) of section 67 — writ against interim order of Election Tribunal — competency of — alternate remedy — The alternate remedy provided by law i.e appeal before Supreme Court is not only efficacious, adequate but the decision in such appeal also attains finality — under section 55, the time for decision of petition is fixed as 6 months. — keeping in view the whole scheme of law, Held: the interim orders which are open to be challenged  in appeal, if allowed to be challenged in writ jurisdiction, it will amount to cause delay in disposal of the election petition which will practically defeat the purpose of law — the decision in writ petition is also challengeable before the Supreme Court, thus in this state of affairs, the parties will be  forced to face unnecessary litigation whereas  in case of an appeal the matter has directly to be attended by the Supreme Court so that the inordinate delay can be avoided. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (V)
  30. S. 58 — lays down the procedure for the trial of the election petitions. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (E)
  31. Sections 59 & 63 — writ against interim orders of Election Tribunal — competency of — under section 63 only one appeal is provided under law, which is not an efficacious remedy regarding the matters arising out during the course of trial before the Election Tribunal — if an order, on the face of it, is illegal or unlawful, it can be challenged by way of writ petition — Held: The remedy of appeal is not an efficacious remedy as the same can only be invoked after final adjudication of the matter by the tribunal — Further held: an aggrieved person can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to get his grievance redressed. Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore 2015 SCR 159 (II)
  32. S. 60 — It provides that the Tribunal has all the powers of a civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (F)
  33. S. 63(3) Appeal — An appeal lies to the High Court from the decision of the Election Tribunal on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 100. Such appeal is to be heard by the Division Bench decision of which shall be final. R.Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (H)
  34. S. 63(A) — Although the appeal to the High Court lies as a matter of right, it lies only on the grounds that the decision is contrary to law, some material issues of law or usage having the force of law have not been determined or a substantial error or defect which may possibly produce error or defect in the decision on the merits of the case. R. A. Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (J)
  35. Section 63(3) — Election Tribunal — appeal — appeal only lies against a final order. No appeal against an interlocutory order. Sr. M. Hussain v. Dr. Najeeb Naqi & others  2014 SCR 140 (A)
  36. Section 63 (3) — interim constitution Act, 1974 — Sections 42 and 47 — Election tribunal — appeal/PLA before Supreme Court — under section 63(3), any person aggrieved of a decision of tribunal may within thirty days of announcement of decision, appeal to Supreme Court. A combined reading of section 63 of ordinance 1970 and section 42(2) (12) and 47 of constitution makes it clear that PLA is competent against the judgment, decree, order or sentence of the High Court and the administrative Courts and tribunals dealing with the matters enumerated in sub-section 1  (A) (B) and (C) of section 47.Direct appeal under any law is provided in section 42 (2) of the constitution and held Election laws clearly fall in the definition of “ other laws” section 63 of which provides direct appeal in the Supreme Court against a final order. Sardar Muhammad Hussain v. Dr. Najeeb Naqi & 12 others 2014 SCR 140 (E)
  37. Section 64 read with ordinance No.CCLXXIX — Jurisdiction and competency of Election Tribunal —  Argument that in view of clauses(A) and(B) of section 64 of the Election Ordinance, having been deleted through ordinance No.CCLXXIX, the Election Tribunal was not competent to look into the qualification or disqualification of the appellant. It may be referred that when in 1987 some of the ordinances were made Act of the Assembly, ordinance No.CCLXXIX was not placed before the Assembly so it died its natural death after four months and previous law stood revived. Held: At present the legal position is that the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the question of qualification or disqualification in an election petition filed before it. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain & 9 others 2010 SCR 329 (C)
  38. Election petition its trial similar to that of civil cases — Evidence — Burden of proof — Its preponderance — Section 64 of Qunun-e-Shahadat — Evidence through modern devices admissible — The trial of elections petition is akin to that of civil cases and the Courts have to see the preporderance or probability to be derived from other legal evidence — Sufficient material was brought on record by at least three contenders opposing the appellant in general elections that he is disqualified to contest the election. The reply to their objections was vague, evasive and to some extent misleading the appellant did not ask the Returning Officer, Chief Election Commissioner, Election Tribunal or for that matter this Court to get his stand confirmed through modern devices. Held: Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices etc. is admissible under section 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain & 9 others 2010 SCR 329 (G)
  39. Ss. 64, 65, & 66 — Elections to be declared void — Elections to be void as a whole — In section 64 are given the grounds on which the election of returned candidate can be declared void, while the grounds for declaring the elections as a whole void are incorporated in section 66. Section 65 authorises the Election Tribunal, in given circumstances to declare the election of a returned candidate to be void and also to declare that any other contesting candidate has been duly elected. However, this power is restricted only to a situation in which election of a returned candidate is to be declared void under Section 64 and does not extend to a situation where the election as a whole is declared as void under section 66. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (G)
  40. Ss. 64 & 66 — Election to be void — The grounds on which an election can be declared void are enumerated in sections 64 & 66 wherein it is provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied with the existence of any ground enumerated in the two provisions of law it shall declare the election to be void — If the stage of satisfaction is reached no discretion is left with the Tribunal. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others  1995 SCR 1 (O)
  41. Ss. 64 & 66 — Corrupt or illegal practice — An election can be declared void on being found that election of the returned candidate has been procured and induced by corrupt or illegal practice or there has been prevalence of extensive corrupt or illegal practice but is not necessary to prove that the returned candidate was responsible for these practices. In clause (D) it is necessary to prove that corrupt or illegal practice has been committed by the returned candidate. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (S)
  42. The Ordinance has clothed the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court with finality but this Court has the appellate power under the Interim Constitution Act. This Court would follow the same principles as are followed by it in an appeal filed with leave of the Court against a second appeal decided under section 100 C.P.C. by the High Court. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (K)
  43. Satisfaction of a Tribunal must be based on conclusions arrived at in compliance with the prescribed statutory provision — A Tribunal which is one of exclusive jurisdiction, enjoys a measure of freedom to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the circumstances of each case, once it is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in section 64 and 66 is present. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (Q)
  44. Question whether election proceedings are civil, criminal or quasi criminal in nature? Held: Proceedings before the Election Tribunal are akin to a civil proceedings — The filing of an election petition and a written statement and settling of issues are salient features of an election petition. An analysis of the Ordinance as a whole leaves no doubt that election proceedings are not criminal or quasi criminal. Civil Procedure Code has been made applicable though partly the proceedings are essentially civil in nature — The election petition is more or less the same as a plaint in a civil suit and written statement filed before the Election Tribunal is at par with a written statement in a Civil Court — Striking of issue is also essentially civil in nature — While framing issues what has been admitted by the other party is not required to be proved. To find out what has been admitted or what has been adenied the principles laid down in C.P.C. about denial, evasive denial etc would be applicable.  Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (R)
  45. Proof of corrupt and illegal practice— Corrupt or illegal practice to be proved as is done in a criminal charge — If a finding has to be given that a corrupt and illegal practice has been committed by the returned candidate or by any person acting on his behalf it is necessary to prove it as is done in a criminal charge — However, if there is no finding against the returned candidate or finding is that the election has become void on account of the failure of any person to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance or rules this requirement is not necessary. In such matters only preponderance of possibility would be sufficient. R.A.Qayyum v.Ch.Latif Akbar1995 SCR 1 (T)
  46. Election Tribunal not bound by technicalities — In election matters the Election Tribunal not being bound by strict technicalities can declare an election to be void on proved facts with modification or moulding of relief — If an allegation is levelled in accordance with the prescribed procedure it must be proved in its totality and otherwise it would fail. If it is alleged in the election petition that corrupt and illegal practices have been committed by a returned candidate and at the trial illegal and corrupt practices are proved but there is no proof that the same were committed by the returned candidate it would not debar the Tribunal to transpose relief on the proved fact or corrupt or illegal practice. Similarly if the corrupt or illegal practice has been alleged by violation of the provisions of the Ordinance and rules is proved the Tribunal will be at liberty to determine the decision of the petition on the basis of those proved facts. R. A. Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (U)
  47. Object of the provisions governing trial of election petition — The object of the provisions which govern the trial of an election petition which are peculiar in nature is to find out whether the will of the electorate has been conducted without illegalities and free from corrupt and illegal practices — The will of the electorate has the basic importance. Where two views of the evidence were possible and one view has been taken by the Tribunal and its judgment has been upheld by the High Court, this Court will not normally interfere in these findings. Raja Abdul Qayyum  v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (X)
  48. Object of the elections — Elections are held to ascertain the popular will of the electorate in democratic system so that a person who commands the confidence of the majority may represent them in the Assembly — If the candidates indulge in malpractice and consequently corrupt or illegal practice or violation of law is found to have occurred the real party which suffers is the electorate. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (Y)
  49. High Percentage of Votes Polled — At six polling stations 87.5 to 98.4 percent votes were polled that was sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that there was prevalence of extensive corrupt and illegal practice at these polling stations and it was not necessary to fix the liability. The only necessity was to see whether election has been materially affected. Election Tribunal has done it by mathematical calculations. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (Z)
  50. Poling of excess votes — Gross violation of law — Polling of more votes is a gross violation of Ordinance and Rules and shows the prevalence of corrupt and illegal practices. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar & others 1995 SCR 1 (AA)
  51. Polling in violation of law — Result of — It cannot be imagined that a single vote more than the total can be polled — Whoever was responsible for this state of affairs, it must be said such demonstration of high handiness and illegalities tend to erode the confidence of the people from the electoral system on which our democratic polity is based. It cannot be visualised that this could happen without the participation of the concerned polling staff. Whether the presiding Officer and other staff members were forced into this situation or they did it in their own free will makes little difference because in both the cases the result is that there was gross violation of law and a classic case of corrupt and illegal practices has come to light. Held: The polling at these stations was violative of law and thus invalid. Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar 1995 SCR 1 (BB)
  52. Election petition — Nature of trial — Similar to that of civil cases — The trial of election petition is akin to trial of civil cases as postulated by the Code of Civil procedure — The Code of Civil Procedure confers powers on Court and is not a code restricting or delimiting its unlimited powers. Held: The general principle is that every procedure is to be taken as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by law — The Code of Civil Procedure is primarily meant for strealmining and channelising the smooth administration of justice — The technicalities contained in various provision have been enacted with the said object — Further held: Compliance becomes mandatory in case only where some vested right has accrued to opposite party due to negligence and wilful omission of party at fault. Similarly strict adherence would be required where the ends of justice so demands or on the ground of public policy. Further held: That it is correct that the issues are framed and judgment on all issues has to be recorded, however it remains within competence of civil Court that if decision on single issue is sufficient to dispose of the case, there remains no requirement of law to record findings on other issues. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain & 9 others 2010 SCR 329 (A)
  53. Burden of proof — Elections proceedings — Article 118 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 — Onus of proof — Preponderance of Evidence — In civil cases the Court has to see only that the plaintiff has not to prove his case against his opponent beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. On the other hand if the preponderance or probability of evidence is likely to succeed — Same is the case as far burden of proof is concerned. Held: Under Article 118 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain & 9 others 2010 SCR 329 (B)
  54. Returning officer — Scrutiny of nomination papers — Evidence — Burden of proof in case of qualification or disqualification — The Returning Officer had to satisfy himself while making scrutiny of nomination papers among others as to whether the appellant is qualified or disqualified to contest elections and as to whether nomination papers should be accepted or rejected. Held: It was the appellant who had to suffer if non of the parties had produced the evidence. A specific assertion was taken on behalf of the contesting respondent and two other persons before the Returning officer that the appellant is not matriculate and that the degree he has placed on record is fake and factious. The appellant filed an F.I.R., copy of which is at page 209 of the paper book, wherein the asserted that while coming to Chechian from Jatlan he lost original certificates of “O” and “A” level along with his passport which was issued from Manchaster. Further held: Although F.I.R .doesn’t constitute a valid piece of evidence under law but even if Court admits it to be so, he was under legal obligation to produce secondary evidence by placing a duplicate or attested copies of the same, which he didn’t produce even after a lapse of four years before the Election Tribunal and when by accepting his application we allowed him, it is enigmatic that the certificates produced before the Court, on the face of it stands proved by the appellant himself to be ingenuine. Ch. Rukhsar Ahmad v. Ch. Arshad Hussain & 9 others 2010 SCR 329 (E)
  55. No PLA lies from an interim order of the Election Tribunal in the Supreme Court. Sardar Muhammad Hussain v. Dr. Najeeb Naqi & 12 others 2014 SCR 140 (F) 
  56. Held: An appeal in the Supreme Court can competently be filed when an election petition is dismissed under section 59 of election ordinance. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (L)
  57. Held: that finality attached to the orders of the Election authorities under Elections Ordinance cannot be equated with the finality attached by the constitutional provisions — The finality attached to an election dispute by a subordinate legislature cannot be placed at the same level as finality attached to a constitutional provision. Ch. M. Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (O) PLD 1986 SC (AJ&K) 120 rel. 
error: Content is protected !!