- Rule 60 once the Election Tribunal reaches the conclusion that there had been failure to comply with the Ordinance and the rules made thereunder and that failure had materially affected the result of the election it is bound to declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. The word ‘Election’ used in rule 60 does not refer to polling and a particular station but result of the elections compiled after tabulating all the votes secured by contesting candidates from the Polling Stations of that constituency. — Tribunal is not vested with the powers of repolling — Order of repolling declared illegal. Gul Sher Khan v. M. Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 281 (C)
- Rule 62 (b&d) — Under clause (B) the Tribunal is authorised to declare the election of the returned candidate to be void — Uunder clause (D) the power given to the Tribunal is to declare election to be void as a whole.— “Election of the returned candidate” clearly refers to the result of the election in which a person has been declared as elected which can only be done after tabulating the result of all the Polling Stations in a constituency. This clause does not contain any direct or indirect reference to a particular Polling Station. Argument that since there was no disturbance at the other Polling Stations repolling at those stations could not be ordered, repelled.— It is for the law makers to give or not to give a certain power to the Election Tribunal.— In case in which the election of a returned candidate has been materially affected by any irregularity or non-compliance of the law the election has to be declared to be void and fresh elections at all the Polling Stations have to be held. Gul Sher Khan v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 281 (A)
- Duty Magistrate and the police officers being functionaries of the State their report cannot be discarded without cogent reasons particularly when it has been accepted by the Returning Officer and the Election Commissioner. Raja Shaukat Iqbal v.Election Comissioner 1993 SCR 292 (A)
- —Notification dated 21.04.2017—Delimitation of Wards–criteria for creation of wards—single member ward population not less than 2000 and not more than 5000— From the perusal of the notification it postulates that some amendments have been made in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Election Rules, 1983. After going through the relevant clause of Government notification (supra), it appears that only a criteria has been laid down regarding the creation of wards that the population of a single -member ward shall not be less than 2000 and more than 6000. It has not been provided in the notification (supra) that every Mozia/village having population of more than 2000, must be constituted and declared as an independent ward of Municipal Corporation. The list of wards brought on record by the appellants itself shows that there are a large number of the wards in the Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarabad, consisting of different areas/villages, having the population of more than 5000. Thus, mere on the ground that the population of MoziaSathra is more than 2000, direction for creation of separate ward of MoziaSathra cannot be issued, if such direction is issued the same may create many hardships. Even otherwise, as by not constituting the separate ward of MoziaSathra, no violation of Government notification dated 21.04.2017, has been committed. Resident of Village Sathra vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 592 (A)
error: Content is protected !!