IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH
AT SUKKUR
Election Appeal No.S-29
of 2016
[Abdul Hakeem v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Election
Commission of Pakistan Islamabad and 7 others]
Date of hearing : 07.05.2018
Date of
Decision : _________
Appellant : Through Mr. Aijaz Ali Jarwar, Advocate.
Respondents : Through
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Jatoi,
Assistant Advocate General Sindh and Mr. Mehboob
Ali Wassan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
Law under discussion : (1) Sindh
Local Government Act, 2013
(the “Election Law”),
(2) Sindh Local Councils
(Election) Rules, 2015 (the “Election Rules”).
(3) The Representation of People Act, 1976. (ROPA)
(4) Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J: The Appellant has filed
this Appeal against the impugned order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned
Election Tribunal at Naushero Feroze
in Election Petition No.17 of 2016, filed by the
present Appellant in which besides official Respondents, the present Respondents
No.6, 7 and 8 were also impleaded. The learned
Election Tribunal dismissed the Election Petition of the present Appellant on
legal objections raised by the private Respondents on the ground that copy of
the Election Petition was not served upon the Respondents while filing the same
before the learned Tribunal and so also the said Election Petition did not bear
the verification as required under the Sindh
Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015 (the “Election
Rules”).
2. The undisputed
facts leading to the present Appeal are that the Appellant and private Respondents
No.6 to 8 were the contestants for the seat of General
Member of Ward No.2, Town Committee Padidan Town, District Naushero Feroze in the Election of Local Bodies, 2015. After the
results, Respondent No.6 was declared a winning
candidate but the election result was challenged by the present Appellant through
the aforementioned Election Petition.
3. Mr. Aijaz Ali Jarwar, the learned Advocate
for the Appellant has argued that when the learned Tribunal issued directions
for the notices, then the same were sent through courier service by the Appellant
and as an evidence he has filed the courier receipts
with the present Appeal. With regard to the second ground for dismissal of Appeal,
about non verification of the petition as per the Rules, the learned counsel
for the Appellant has also disputed this allegation and while arguing that the
impugned order is erroneous on the law and the fact, has stated that the Election
Petition was verified as per the Rules. It was further contended by the
Appellant’s side that the Election Petition should have been decided on merits,
inter alia, as the present Appellant
has specifically stated the corrupt and illegal practices resorted to by the returned
candidate / Respondent No.6 in connivance with other official
Respondents, which requires a detailed inquiry and a proper trial.
4. The
arguments of the Appellant’s side have been controverted by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Jatoi, the Assistant Attorney
General of Pakistan, representing the Respondents No.1 and 2-Federation of
Pakistan and Election Commission as well as Mr. Mehboob
Ali Wassan, the Assistant Advocate General Sindh, who
represented the Official Respondents No.3, 4 and 5.
5. The returned
candidate / Respondent No.6 has
filed a written reply to the present Appeal and has supported the impugned Order.
It has been specifically pleaded in the reply, which was the main stance of present
Respondent No.6 before the Election Tribunal that Petitioner
did not serve the copy of the Election Petition upon the Respondents either
personally or through courier service.
6. With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties the record and proceeding
of the present appeal and the Election Petition No.17
of 2016 has been examined. It is not
disputed that when the Election Petition was filed, the same was not served
either personally, through courier or registered post upon the Respondents, but
after the Court orders the same (Election Petition) was sent through registered
post. The decision reported in 2017 YLR 557-Jaleel Ahmed v. Election Commission of Pakistan through
Chief Election Commission and 8 others (of our Court) and the decision handed down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
and reported in 2014 SCMR 1477
(Inayatullah Versus Syed Khursheed
Shah), which was followed in another decision given by this Court in an
unreported case of Muhammad Zaman Versus Federation of
Pakistan and others-Election Appeal No.S-10 of 2016,
the legal position that emerges in this
regard is, that Rule 61 (d) of the Election Rules (ibid)
relating to the service of an Election Petition on the Respondents has to be
interpreted as a mandatory requirement, which is to be fulfilled by Petitioner,
who has to serve a copy of an Election Petition upon the Respondents either personally
or through courier service or registered post, at that time when the Election
Petition is filed before the Election Tribunal. The counter arguments of
the Appellant’s side that the service of Election Petition was effected upon
the Respondents once the notices were issued by the Election Tribunal, thus has
no force, and since the Rules 61, 62 and 63 are mandatory in nature in view of
the Rule 64, which provides a consequence of dismissal of Election Petition, if
the afore mentioned Rules are not complied with, therefore, the impugned order to
this extent is not erroneous.
7. Adverting
to the second ground of dismissal of Election Petition; the original Memo of Election
Petition is examined and admittedly it does not contain the verification clause,
which is in vogue in the Province of Sindh for the past few years. This very
aspect of the case has been discussed in detail in a reported decision of this
Court handed down in number of Election Appeals having title Muhammad
Amin and another Versus Jawaid Ali and 5 others-2017 YLR Note 429. In paragraph-21 of the above reported
Judgment, it is mentioned that a specified format exists in the Province of
Sindh for verification of pleadings. In view of this, the finding of the learned
Election Tribunal is within the four corners of law and therefore, requires no
interference. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality and thus is maintained. Accordingly, this Election Petition is dismissed.
8. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.
JUDGE
Sukkur,
Dated:
_____________
M.Javaid/PA