Haleem Adil Sheikh (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)

E? I.,^*ctr\^-t.^i*d$t lt F*d'i'4't

C'lrlt'l'llj[(:n"l'11 (]l;'l'l Il1 III(ill (:(]tJI('l'(]l; SlNl]l l, KAI{A(:lll Eloctlon Potition HO. 01 of 2fr24 t Haloom Adll Shslkh

Vs

ECP & Othors

I tf"(it I IIQIJI{-I*QL- llNlJJJ

{'rtttrlyo;!-riryl*tt[J!s,ttgl:."- " * $'ll, Mr. Justlce Muhamrnad Harlm lthan Agha

l)ntr: of hcaring: 0q-0q-2()24

Ilccitled on : fi-49-2fr24

Judgrncnt approvcd lor ltcporting Ye:i-

CIlIT"I'II;ICA1"IJ, (lcrtificrl that tlrc judgrncnt #/Ordcr is bascd upon or snunciatcs a principle ul'lrrr */dccidcs a rlucstiolr ol'larv which i.s of'first impression/rJistinguishr:s/. Ovcr-rulur/ rsvcr.ses/explains a prcvious decision.

+ Strikc out rvhichcvcr is nut applical,rle,

N0l"li: - (i) This slip is orrly to be used wlten soms acliott is to bc laken.

(ii)If thc slip is uscd, thc ltenrlcr must attach it to the top ol'thc lirst Page of the iudgnrcrlt'

(iii)I(eaclcl musl ask tlre .ludgc writing the Judgrnent rvhethcr thc Jtldgtrttnt is apprnvctl lirr rc;lorting'

(iv)'l'5g.,;e dircclions rvhiclt nt'c ttot 1o Iru usctl sltotrld hc tltlct'rd.

fl.ry

qo

nEIIORIi'l'HIi IILIICTION TRIIIUNAL, Kr\RACI II ,11' 1'ltrll lllGll COU|t'f fiF SINI)ll' KrlltrtCl ll L Iilection llctiticrr No. -il*Zoe+ 11 " r r4':f r1n -rft.:*, {

F

fir"r '''' -i'l!"'1 , I r,i Ilitl.lilil\l rtFll, tillltlKll i (*n,." *( IltE-TEU[Jtli1U!]tlj!]J:ANUl!)^llli"rLUl-NA:]J$-[K&ttACtllJi&s'l' IvJ S/u ltnnrtt tlthlin Arlil In* s i dt* n t. Pn L r r I i In rt'l'r,' I tn-r'k - e - I rt r n I' ( I I' I ) !i I t r t I I t tix-r)tlt)0st]'tilN l.liAnlilt li lNl) I I l:X- MlihllltiR OIr llltCIVlNClAL A.S.Slihl Ilt.Y OII .SINDI I R/o lltrurt-. Ntr. ?], St.3, Ccrrr,'rnls .$ocicty AOSll, ncnr Nulionnl Sladium, Krrtchi PE'TITIONIlR

VDII.SUS

HLHCTION COI\IN,IISSION OII PA KISTAN

Thmugh;

i} CIIIIFIILE,CTIONCOhIIUISSIONBIT'PAKISTAN l{rving its Sccrttariltt nl Cottstittttiott Avenue G'5l2Ishnutrad.

ii)TIR(}YINCIAtELtrCTIONCOIIITIIISSIONER,SINDII Srddar. Karachi.

d t r l

L TIIE RETURNING OFFICER, I

Nrtionnl Assenrhly - 238 {NA'238 {Krrlclri East IV}) I Through thc Respondent No.l

r"";3. FADIQ II'TIKIITI,R t,.tr'tD v '^-tin"J 'L-/ rHn.sHnna Rrru.RrtED CANDIDATE FOR NA-?38 (KARi\CHI EAST IV) fU" Hr,r",l I43 PECIIS, Knrnclri

4.Pir Omer Urltlin Talnr lUo tlousc # |Ul, Stll24, Khayab;rtr c Dnyrttr DI Ir\, Phitsc-?, Klrrtclri

5.Tabrssunt Abtlul Qltlir IUo llousc ll 72-lUB DI IA pltitsu-?[ixt. Knrltclrl (t. Julll Urldilr Brrchlurti IUo llousel,636, St,f44 Sec- C-9, Islitntithittl.

?' Rehun UdrJin ffi/u lluuss# f lfi Jurnsltlld Qrt,, Kitrucltl / ff. $ehar yltryl lUtl Fhlfl S0l-4, Il;rbitr rcsitluttuy, Clvll l"lrtu' $iaritultl .,, o*q.t*$fi{dra Tel Muntultu Wirlcr ltrtltt;t, lill Alel, Kir11cltl .,Oo-t*, td$illouself ?84/14.

.ou* ol S\ndh ru'&t$

-rr'*'t

I

q\

I0. SYctl Ar.'ihnd l'lusnn 3 Ir/n ItouSli lf c-3 Ill.(x'K ?, (iulsilAN IQilAL KAI(ACI il \ I l, Sy*tl lvlnrghorth Iltt.'isllitt Ahltli Itftr Iil*tll5/.1.1), Stll33, l)l IA I'ltitsc-V, !(ttrrtcltl.

l' IJtltll tt 1'r f\a ro-, ll/o ltotrsc {l {1 Ir -,t I'li(:llS, l(ru'rtcltl lJ. .Slruirib Aklrter Itlo tlOLlSIi#IltI I'lll COLONY' I(AItAClll

14.Ar.iz. Ur ltclttttnn l{ousc # 355 A, PECl"lS, Oltl Sittrzi Mrttttli, I(rtritclti.

15.Ali Ahrrutl Pallt R/o I{OUSE # 76 A I(l'lAtlANAY, SAI{ER DI-IA KARACIII

16.Katrsnr Fllittta Zaidi [Uo t{ousen R-992, Culburg Torvu, Block- [6, Ktt'aclti t ?. [,lulrnnrrttad Ihtisltnttt [Uo Flartsc #C(r3 FC AREA' KARACI{I

J

IL Muhanrnrad A.sltraf IUo houscff 123-K, Block-2, PECHS, Karachi

19.Mulrnrnltrad AYub Arvart lUo I'louse # G-3 I(aslrrvidh Colorty, Karaclri

20.Muhantrnnd Slrnlrid IUo I-IOUSE# 49 CUJRAT COLONY' KARACI-II

?1. Mulrarnmad Intrtlt R/o Flat# 155/4 Martin Qrt' Jahangir road, Karachi

22.Muhan'rntad Wnseettt lUo lrousefl 159-b st - 16 Khayabnn e Romi, DHA Kitraclti

23.Mthnrood llaqi Molvi lUo l-lousc{l ?6, .St#2, Kalraynn ban c ltlclitr, DIIA plrnsc-(r, lttrnchi

24.Mushttq Ahnrcd It/o J'lousc # l2 lllA 'lhrvlt .SItip, Airport I(nraclri

25.Nndcsnr Sabir IUo lrousc tl?12 J'tmsltcd Roitd, I(lrlchl 26, Nawlb Salirn l(han

I It/o I'lousull I'l-4.5(r, Plll Colorty, lleltirttl Jtril, l(itrnchi ljrrsl 27, Fnroorl Alrrncd Qar.i, L Be 'l'lrr Iilstrvllilc ltclurning OIIIr:r:r, Nrr{i*rtul A.tstrtrhly . Xltl (Nrl-238 (Kurrrchi lltst IV)) /') Arlrtilionnl l)iruclor, Local Govu'lrnrenl I(nrrtshi l,lns{, ttrrorrglt lhu llcsponrlerrl No. I irqqr rrsgistrar rit & ldentrty (A.S,) r Qourt ol Sincth Kuurlrl

fr fr

Qz

t o CHI

F I

trIcctlon Pctltlon Ho'Ol of ?,0.24

Datc Order with si turc $ of Jud 5

]. iror scttlcment of issues of 2O24

i, fior hearing of MA No' 1493 3, For hearinfi of MA No' o{ 2O24 of 2024 i. Iror hearinf of MA No' 1808

******** 'r**

Barrister Ali Tahir for the Petitioner' Barrisrer Iftikhar Ahmed Sh;h-;iong with M1s' Raja Zeeshan ancl Muhammad Naeern, advocates' fuIr.GhulamsarwarBaloch,AssistantAttorneyGeneralof (La'w) pakistan along with Mr. AbJ,rif"f, Hanjra, Deputy Director

ECP.

I

Date of hearing Date of Announcement 23.09.2024

ORDER

Muhammftd, Kflrlm Khan, Agha, J. Through the Election Petiti0n No.01 of 2024 petitioner Haleem Adil shaikh (Runner up candidate) had challenged the notifrcation and conduct of the etrection whereby Respondent No.S Mr. Sadiq Iftikhar was declared as Returned Candidate and other respondents in respect of his

defeat in general electi on 2O24 in respect of the e lection to NA Karachi East-lV,

2, The Re turned Candidate had filed CMA No. 1493 of 2A24 whereby he had challenged the maintainabilify* of the Election Pctition No,01 of 2024 filed by the Runner up Candidate against himsclf zlncl nther respondents-

3.Lcarncd counsel for the Returned Carrdidate in lerm-s of maintainabitiiy made three main arguments; the first one was that s:incc this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 (CP order) had conuerted the constiturional petition filed by the Runner iJp Candidate into a complaint under section I and g of the Elections Act, 2017 which was to be heard and decidecl by the Election {lommission of Pakistan {trCP}. When the petitiori was brougiit l:cl'orc the BCP it n'-ais dismissed vide order dateci Zl.O2.2O:i4 ($fcp

I

Order) with remarks that the Runner up Candidate may resort to t the Election Tribunal concerned if so advised. It wa$ submitted that the trCP Order amounted to a declaration under Section S.9 (1) of the trlections Act 2017 and as such the Runner up Candidate had to appronch the Suprcme Court of Pakistan under S.9(5) of the Elcctiorrs Ac,. 2017 at the first instance rather than this Tribunai and sirrce it had lailed to do so the Ele ction Petition shou Id be summarily dismissccl by this Tribunal.

4.The second argument was that the Blection Petition did not comply rvith section 144 of the Election Acts, 2Al7 and that it was liable to be dismissed by virtue of Section 145 of Election Act, 20t7.

5.Finally he argued that the Election Petition had been filed in , violation of Section 1a2(2)(a) of Elections Act, ?,O17 and as such it should also be summarily dismissed by this Trihunal on lhis ground as we}l. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the cases of Mushtaq Ahmed v Sardar Aftab Akbar Ithan (2019 MLD 1313), Khair Jan v Abdut Qudoos Bizanjo {2019 CLC 1520}, Matik Muharumad I{awaz v Hhayal Ahmad (2019 CLC 960}, Mir Muji-ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani v Returning Officer PB- 4L IIIA$HUH (PLD 2Q2O SC 718] and Trading Corporation of Pakistan v Deven Sugar Mills Limited (PLD 2O1B SC 828).

6.Learned counsel for the Runner up Candidate refuted all the afcresaid arguments advanced by the learned coun sel for the Returned Candidate by pcinting to the material available on record vrhich was supported by the Representative of ECP except rvith regard to $ection 1a4{b} of Elections Act, 2017.

7.I have heard iearned counsel for the parties as rvell as Assistant rtttorney General of Pakistan along rvith Representative of BCP and perused the reeord as well as case law cited.

8.It is true that immediately after the general election 2018 the Runner up Candiclate along with others approaclled this Court by way of filing constitutional petition for their grievances in respect of the conduct of 2024 elections in respect of various constituencies incluciing NA-238 Karachi-East IV which is the subject matter of this petiti,cn. As rightly polnted out by the learled cotlrtsei ;or the, t naEll

TY

\ Rcturtrccl Cnndidntc thc petitions were convcr[cd into complnints irr tcrms o[ $ection I and I of Elcctions Act, ?Afi and were heard lry thc trCP. Fnr ensc of rcfcrcnce Scction I of Elcctions Act, z}fi is sct ottt l-lclorv:-

9.Poruer of the Camrm{sslort to declare a poll uotd.-f 1) Nottuflhs{arrriing artything conlained irt tlris Act, if, fi'ant fctcts ctqpilretil on the face of the nscorrl attd after suclt errguiqy fls it ma!! deem necessfl,U, tlrc Corttrnissiotr is satisy'ecl that by rlsnrson af graue illegalittes or such uialations o/ tlw prouisions o/ this Act or the J?ules f{s haue Irraterially affected the result of the polt al one or ntare polling stations or in the whole consl ituencg frrcludrrrg implementatfon of arL agreement resfrnrnfng wornen from casting thetr uotes, it slrall make d declaratiart accordinglg and call upon tlw uoters fn the concented polltng staf fon or sfafions or fn the whole constttuencg as the case

I

maA be, to recasf their uates in the manner prouided for bye-elections, "

9.After hearing the parties the ECP passed a shorL order on 2I.O2.2O24 (ECP Order) in the following terrns:- "IWr. JV{sa.r Ahmed Duruanl, Member-For detailed reasons to be recorded separately, instant petition / complaint ts dfsmrssed wtth remarks tha,t the petltloner rrr.ag resort to tlte .Electlon Trlbunal concerned, tI so adutsed. " (bold added) sdl - 21.02.2024 lVfsar Ahmed Durrant"

10.It is apparent flrom the BCP Order that the BCP rvhile dismissing the complaints gave the petitioner full opportunity to rcsort to the Election Tribunal concerned if so advised. Hence the Runner up Candidatc approached this trlection Tribunal through Election Fctition No.OI o12024.

I l. It is notcd thst nowhcrc in the shorL orcler nny declaration is made, My intcrpretntion with regnrcl Lo Scction g of the Elcctions AcL,20l7 is Ll'rnf sccLion 5 (2) which nllo',ved nn nggrieved person to challengc such clcclnrntion maclc unclcr Section 9(1! of Elcctiorrs Act, 2017 to tlre Sultrcme Court, rarould onty npply if the Runncr up Candidate hacl bcclt Bu(:cc$elul unrlcr scclion g ancl thc ECp mnclc E!. declaration to that elfecl. and cnlled upon the voters in the cotlccrned pollinp, strll.ion or stntions or in the whole constitr-lcncy

I

qf

as the ca$e may be, to recast their votes in the marlner provided for bye-elections and then S.5(2) would have come into play' LZ. In t.his cfl,sc I find that no such declaration was made and cvcrl otherwisc the ECP Ordcr lcd to the Runner up Candidate being Llll$Llcccssful uncler sccLion 9{1) of Blection Act,2017 and as sttclt sectiorr 9(5) of ltrlcction Act,2A17 never came into play ( as it rvor"rltl hnvc becn applical:lc Lo thc aggrievecl party which in this c{l$c rvould lrnve been the Rcturned Candidate had the Runner Up Candiclate treen successful under S.9(1) hence there is no need flor thc Runr:cr up Candidatc to approach the Supreme Court rather he could approach this trlection Tribunal if he so desired as set out irr the BCP Order which he did and I am fortified by my finding by Paragraph 3 of CP Order made hy this court in the Runner Up candidates constitution Petition dated 1 3.02 .2A24 which is re produced hereunder: -

"Itt cdrse of ang furAher grieuattce, the aggrieued parties will be. at libertg to seek their remedg as auailable to thern under the Election Act, 2017 bg sppraaching the releuarut forunt, including Tribunal etc. constituted fo, such purpases in accordaruce with laus."{Bold added}

13.As such I find the above argument to be with out merit.

14.With regard to the second argument made by the learned counsel for the Returned Candidate that the Election Petition was in violation of Section 1aa(a) of Elections Act, 2017. The aforesaid section is set out below for ease of reference:* "144, Conlents of petitiort.-(l) rln election petitian shsll contain-

(u)u precise slulenrcnt af the materiql facts on v;hiclt the petll ioner rclle.r ; and {b} full purtiutlcrrs of nny ssr','u1tt or illegal pructice or tstltcr tllegal nct ullegttl to have been cotnmitted, lnclutllng nafires of the pwties u,ho are ulleged to have committed such carrupt or illcgal practice or illegnl nct und thu tlntc and place of tlrc cournrissior of such pructlca 0r acl, "

t 5. Having examined the concise statement in the Election tretition I find it is full conformity with the provisions of Section 144{1) (a} of trlectlons Act, 2OL7 namely concise/precise statement has becn given in respect of material facts upoll which thc

v

petitioner relies in which I have gone through carefully, which is t available at page-$ of Election Petition, and makes it quite clear and understandable for the Returned Candidate to make his reply in his writl,en statement as it includes allegations of electoral tnnrl;erigg nrrd torgcry and other elcctoral rnalpractices which are strfficicrrtly clnboratcd on in thc concisc statement, which is reproclttcecl hercunder for ease of refcrencel- "?Tre Petitianer, e law-abtdinct citizen of Pakistctn, canlested the general elections helcl oft 08.A2,2024, fram NA-238 Karachi East'lV ["Cortstituency"], secunng the htghest number of uotes, totalinq eightu-four thousand and fortU r:ltne {84,049). Howeuer thrauah tampertnq: and .forgery in Form 45, Forrn 47, and Form 48, the Petitianer's uotes were reduced to 'thirtu-sk Ihousarud eiqht hundred and eiqhtu'fiue {36,8851, while the uotes of the sharn returned candidate /Resportd.ent JVo. 3) were inflated'to frftU-four thousand eigttt hundred and eiahtg-ftue {54, 3851 whert in actuality he polled onlg ten thousand three hundred and two (10,302) uates. Cammitted to serufng Pakistan, the Petttioner seelcs redress throuqh thfs Elecfion Petition, htghtiqhtinct ufolafions qf .fundamental rtqhts guara.nteed bU Artteles 4, 9, 70, 74, 76, 17, 79, and 25 due to electcral malpractices bg the ,Respondents 7 and 2. htrsuant to Sectfons 76, 92 and 95 of the Elections Act, 2017, and Rule 85 qf the Election Rules, 2017, the Petitiortet'or his Electian Agent is entitled to be preserut dunnq the cottsolfdation af electian results, both at the proufsional and final stages. Houseuer, despite the initial presence qf the Election Aeent, theu were forciblU remoued btt offtcials o.f law eruforcement agencies in conniuance with the Returninq A,fficer, hindennq the consolfd ation process . The acfions of the Respon deruts contrauene electoral larus and requlattons, particularfu Secf ion 92 and 95 af the Dlections Act, 20 17, which manda fe the prot)er announcement and consolidatfon of resttlts in the presence of candidates or therr uflertfs. /Votabh1, the issuance of Fann 47, 48 and 49 and tlw subsequent gyazette notificatfon in haste without adherence to due process, tlrc cbsence of rr,otice .[or consoltcl ation, and erident fot gtrery frt Fonn 45s, Ironn 47s, Ironns 48 attd 4. Thrauqh fhis petitton, the Pelitianer seelts fo challenqe that uerll notilication of the retunted candfdate and to inuolce the interuenttorr of fhfs ?Hbunal, to rect[fu the breaches, restore the intearitA of the electoral process, and uphold the fundamental riqhts enshrined in the Consttttttion, wherebu the Honorable Tribunctl is urqed to declare the electiort. of the retuined candidate io be uoid ancl

I

q1

tlrr Petf tiorter lo lraue beert elected to the \ cottstilttency, "

l(r. with rcgnrcl to scction 144(ll {b} of the Elections Act, ?il1?. rvhiclt subscctlon tlenls with the corrupt and illegal acts bl, ltnrtit:ttlrtr ltrrrtit:s I find ltrnt this aspect of thc Blection I)t.titiorr hrrs llecu l.ultillcd thror-tgtr u numbcr of paragraphs for t xrtutple, ntttuttgst othcrs, pnrugraplts 27, 2B ,36 and 38 of, lllct'tiorr Petitiorr rvhich nrc set out below for case of rcflcrencc;

)T,.{;fter tlre blatctrtt rlgglng o"nd manlpulatlon, Itesporrdent JVo,I fatled to uploo.d lts tr'orm 45s for the 292 polllng statlons ln the constttuencg, d{sregardtng the legal requlrement to do so wtthin I4 dags of polltng as stlpulated tn Seetlon 95fi4) of the Electlons Act, 2A77, On March Sth at 2:01 pm, Resporrdent JVo. I finallg uplaaded the Form 45s far rnosf corrstftttencies on their website, which tncluded the Form 45 for the releuant consfftuerlcg. The Petitioner pramptty

I

dowriloaded these forms from the Google Docs link attaclrcd by the Electton Commission to their website. Notablg, the owner af this fite is identified as 'PEC Srrdlt," (tnd its creattaru date is indicated as Mctrch \th. This deldged and seemtnglg haphazard upload process rcrtses sfgnif{co,nt concerns regarding transparenc4, ilccountabilitg, and adherence to electoral larrs bg Respondent IVo.I, and of course the delfly urrrs onlg to englfteer forgery in the said Form 4Ss.(bold added)

28.These uploaded. falce and forged -fotms epitomize the height of manipulation and nggtng, veeing drastically frorn the legal consolfdafion process rnandated for Fonn 45s to }ionn 47. The alterafions made to these Form 45s r.uere ot'chestrated to dfstort the electton outcome btl unfairlU reducin4 the uotes obtafnefl ht the Petitioner while uniusfl.r 1 ilfiatinc fhose attributed to lhe ltespondent JVo.lS, posilfonirrq hfril fis tlte uictor. lllsott closer exarninaftott, if becorttes fipparettf thaf flre tarnperincl with f ltese fonns r{/Cts ttot rnciderttal brtt srlsfetnalfc crtrl pulposefttl, airtterJ nt sttbuertirt.g tlte t o{ tlrc electoral prccess. If 's' frttS.rorfnrtt ltr sr.rrrcfit.r undcrscore tlwl r/espfte firese alternfiotr, essertfial delails suclt crs IIte siqttalilres of pollirra n,gertfs nnd lhe nflrnss of presidirtgl offrcer-s terttaftted ttrtchattoed, strr;gestitt.q n cnlctrla( ecl ef{ort for cortcecl f lte rnalpractfce in tlrc fonns were fderrtdcal irr all res6:ecf, except for tlrc interpolaLtott and rnanrpulafiorr uisil,rle to tlte ruaked elJe. Analgnlng several dnsfances af tamperlng ealdent ln these Form 45s ls essentlal to fullg comprehend the extent of electoral m{sconduct perpetrated bg Itespondent, JVo. f , 2, 3 o,nd thelr a,ecomplices. (bolcl added!

36.The discrepa.ncies reuealed tn the Form 45s fion ten polling staffons selecfed at random and per exa.mple -

tB

\ otfer n stnrk illustratfon o/ sysfematic manipulaliorr nirned nt altering the electiort results in fauor of Resportrlenf lVo. 3, Sadrq lffkhar. At Polling Stattnn no 2, KDA Cirts & Bogs Secondrrry Modet School Black-l7 Grrlslrnrt-e-lqbal, llrc Petilfoners uates were drasticallg redrtcerJ fi'ortt 263 to 63, wtth the number '2' being tulritarl ottf, tultile lles;:ondent JVo. 3's uotes were tnflatecl /rurn I 9 to 219 lty addirrg fi '2', Moreouer, whiteout rrrnrks Lnere strategfcally added ta Shoaib Akhtar's uofes fo creste an illusfott of comtnon usage, A sfrnflar pattem enrcrged at Polling Station no 5, Citg School Plot No. E 2 Block-l7 Buildirtg No,2 Gulshan-e-lqbat, where the Petif forrer's uotes plummeted from 496 to 26, and Resporrdent JVo. 3's uofes surged from 26 ta 496 through flre rnarrrpulatton of numbers. Thfs trend persisted at Pollfrrg Statfon ruo 6. Seedltng Public Schoal Block-IB Gulshan -e-Iqba|, where the Petitioner's uates were once again substituted with fhose of Respondent No. 3, accompanied by the exclusfue use o/ whileout on the Pefrtioner's uotes, The pattern continued 4 in subsequent polting sfationg such as Palling Station no121 at Braz,eel

I

GGSS Btock-1a PECHS, where the Petttianer's uotes were reduced from 167 to 67, and the same 100 uates were added fo r?espondent No. 3's tallg- Similarlg, at Pofitng Sfafion no 1.28, Merttorious Coltege near Noor Ground, the uotes were interchanged betuteen the two candidates using ttthiteout and rewrites. The mantpulation perststed at Polling Sfaff on no.S, KDA Gfrls & Eoys Secondary Model School Block-l7 Gulshan-e- Iqbal, where the Petitioner's uofes were altered from 322 to 122, and Respondent No. 3's uotes were changed from 1 1 to 211. The saga continued at Polting 'Station no 129, where the Petttioner's 389 uotes were transformed to 89, and Respondent iVo. 3's 30 uotes were eteuated to 330. Mareouer, at Polling Sfation na 131, the Petitioner's uotes Lt)ere reduced from 189 to 89, rtthile Respondent No. 3 receiued the addittonal 100 uotes omitted from the Petitioner's tatal The mantpulation persisted af Polling Statian no 54, where the Petitioner's 407 uoles were conuerted to 007, and despite subtracting 40O uotes, fhe tatal remained unchanged at 753. Flnallg, at Palling Station no 154, the Petitioner's 292 uofes were altered to 92, while Respondent lVo. 3's 3J uotes were ehanged to 231, These fnstances underscare d collcerted etfort to subuert tllE electoral process and manipulate the outcome, necess itatittg urgent interuentton to safegttard the integrtty of lhe democratic process, The Petlttoner, ulde a schedule to thls Memorandum, Ilsts all the polltng statlons and hlghhghts the ane where tamperlng took place, The Pet{ttoner also f,nnexes wlth thls schedule o,ll the Form 45s ln the chronolaglcal order from PoIIlng Statlon JVo, I to 292, along wtth the tampered a,nd manlpulated Farm 45's uplaaded and then deleted from the webslte of the ltespondent JVo. f , for the conuentence of thls trlbunal.(bold added)

I'

TIAry?B

1q

38.That I say on February 8th, polltng agents for \ the constituency received, the origlnal Form 4Ss from varloua potling statlons, marking a pivotal moment ln the electoral process. The following d*y, on February 9th; at O9 Pmr Respondent No.1 uploaded the manlpulnted Form 47 for the constltuencyr ralslng lrnrnodlate concerns about the tntcgrtty of the olectoral outcome. Subsequently, on March 6th, at O2 Pm, Respondent No. !. further exacerbnted doubte by uploadlng manlputated Form 45s for the constltuency. Howover, thls movc only lntenslfled puhlic scrutlny, leadlng to wldespread outcry on soclal media platforme" In a surprlslng turn of events, by 6 pm on the same duy, Respondent Ho' I hastlly rcmoved thCI manlpulated Forrn 45e from their rvebslte, eraslng cruclal evldence of electoral malpractice. These rapid developments underscore the urgency of ensuring transparency and accountability within the electoral process to uphold the democratic rights of citizens. The Respondent No.1 thus has effectively removed any evidence of the , constituency results from their website, having prornptly deleted the forged results on the same day they were initially uploaCed. This conspicuous action suggests a concerted effort by the Respondent No.1 to obscure the evidence of manipulation. It can be surmised that the ECP is now grappling with the challenge of salvaging their credibility amidst mounling scrutiny. There are concerns that they may be strategizing alternative methods as the blatant rigging as described in paragraph 37 came to the public eyes." (bold added)

17 , As such I nnd no substance in the contentions of learned counscl for the Re[urned Candidate in this respect.

18.Finally the Returned Candidate had contended that section 142{21 had been violated, Section 1a2 (a) is reproduced hereunder for easc o[ reference:

742, Presentatlon of petltlon.-(1) An election petitton shall be presented to the Election Tvibunal tuithin torty-fiue days of the publicafron in the oJfictat Gazette otthe name atthe retumed candidate and shall be accornpanled ba a receipt shouing that the petttfoner has deposited. at ang branch of the Jvatfonal Eank o/ Pakistan or at a Gouemment Ttea.sury or &rb-?teasury in favour af the Comrnissdon, ander the prescribed head. of accounf, as secuity for tlrc cosfs ol the petttian, such amount as may be prescribed,

{2) An election petition shall be deemed to haue been r+ nresented--

irAxlF!

A

\cc

(a)when delluered to the Eleetlon Trtbunal A appolnted under sectton 140*

(i)bg the petltloner ln perso n; or

fitl bg a, per$on authorlzed ln wrlttng ln thls behalf by the petltloner; or

(It)tuhen sertf lsy registered post or cauier seruice to tlte Electfort ?}1*brr nal bg the petitioner".(Bald added) lg. It is quite apparent from Election Petition itself that it was presented by Runner up Candidate before the Assistant Registrar (AS) Identification Branch, $indh High Court in presence of his counsel and even his photograph is accompanied with the Elcction petition which contains his affidavit sworn before the Assistant Registrar (AS) Identification Branch, Sindh High Court which can be found at page-4l & 41-C of the Election Petition as such once again I I'rnd the contentions raised by the learned counsel for Returned Candidate in this respect to be without substance, ^t

20, Accordingly I find the Election Petition to be maintainable and as.such dismiss CMA No.1493 of 2A24 in the above terms.

21.To come up on 21.10.2024 at 11;00 a.rn.

l+l

JUDGE

,=lrl ,q

rrlKi,S