Election Tribunal disposes of election petition

The Baloch Hal News

QUETTA: Election Tribunal comprising Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mengal Friday disposed of election petition filed by Rahmatullah Khan Notezai verses Mir Amanullah Khan Notezai.

In the judgment, the Election Tribunal viewed that briefly the facts are that the Petitioner and respondent No.1 had contested the election of the Provincial Assembly from Constituency PB-39, Chagai-I, along with others and on final counting respondent No.1 was declared as returned candidate by obtaining 11683 votes whereas the petitioner obtained 6839 votes.

During pendency of the election petition respondent No.1 filed C.M.A. No.887 of 2010, whereby he has challenged the maintainability of Election Petition No.6 of 2008 filed by the petitioner and prayed that instant petition being incompetent and not maintainable under the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1976 envisage in Section 52,53,54 and 55 is liable to be dismissed.

It further said that learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner along with petition has filed numerous documents, which have not been verified on oath as per provisions of subsection (3) of Section 55 of the Act, every annexure to a petition is to be signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the pleadings which has not been done in the present case.

He has relied on the reported cases, Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra & others v. Khalilur Rehman & 4 others (2000 SCMR 250), Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik & another (PLD 2007 S.C. 362) and Qaiser Ahmed Sheikh v. Muhammad Tahir Shah & others (2005 CLC 1521).

The ET maintained that on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application is not maintainable for the reasons that in the rejoinder to the petition the applicant has not taken objection, therefore, now he is stopped to raise this objection at this stage and should filed an application under Order VI Rule-17 C.P.C., for amendment of the pleadings. He has relied on the cases reported as Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. V. Macca Masjid Trust & others (2009 SCMR 574), Qureshi Industries v. Karachi Development Authority, Civic Centre, Karachi (PLD 1993 Karachi 553), Niaz Muhammad & others v. Abdul Aziz & others (1982 SCMR 883).

The ET noted I have carefully considered the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A perusal of the documents annexed with this petition shows that each and every document has been signed by the Notary Public with the stamp attested to be true copy. Whereas the requirement of the law is that every annexure to a petition shall be signed by the petition and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings. The relevant provision for verification pleading is contained in Order-VI, Rule-15, C.P.C.

It added that a perusal of Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C., clearly shows that a petitioner should sign each and every document annexed with the petition on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot and also state the date on which and the place at which it was signed, but none of these requirement has been fulfilled by the petitioner. Whereas Section 63 of the Act states the consequences for non compliance of the provisions of Section 54 and 55 of the Act,

From the perusal of Section 63 of the Act, a duty has been cast upon the Tribunal to dismiss the election petition as provisions of Section 54 or Section 55 of the act have not been complied with, the judgment maintained.

The ET highlighted, I am also not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the applicant has not taken this objection in the rejoinder to the petition and now he can not raise this objection at this stage.

It maintained that for the foregoing reasons and the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1, I am of the considered view that the election petition is hit by the mandatory provision of Section 55(3) of the Act, 1976. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.887 of 2010 filed by the applicant-respondent No.1 is allowed and the election petition dismissed.