Muhammad Yaseen Vs Provincial Election Commissione, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar etc

SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

(ludicial Department) Election Appeal. No. 01-A/2023

Muhammad Yaseen.

(Appellant/s)

VS

Provincial Election commissioner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others.

(Respondent/s)

Present: Mr. Syed Hammad Hussain Shah Gilloni, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Isma Urooj, Law Officer, for r e spondent s /El ection C ommis s ion.

Mr. Junaid Anwar Khan, Advocate, for private respondent No. I3.

Date of hearing: 09.10.2023

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN" J.- Through the instant election appeal filed under Rule 65 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2021 the appellant has challenged the order/judgment of worthy Election Tribunal dated 25.01.2023 whereby he while accepting an application of respondent No. 13 Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

summarily dismissed the election petition of the appellant being not maintainable.

2 The chronological factual background of this case are as under.

i. The Election of the local government in The Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were held on 31.03.2022 in which the present appellant along with respondent I'{o. 5 to 16 contested for the seat of general councilor fro* Village Council Karori-[, Tehsil Oghi, District Mansehra.

ii. The result of the said election wes announced by the Returntng Officer on 02.04.20222 by issuing Form XX as required under Rules 47 (1) (6) and a9 @) i.e. consolidated statement of result.

Thereafter, Form XXI under Rule 47 (1)

(6)4 (a) and 52 (4) i.e. final consolidated result was issued on same date i.e.

lv. The appellant soon after declaration of the aforesaid fficial results submitted an application for recounting of votes on Tahir Saleem (S B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

a

J

03.04.2022 on the ground that votes polled in his fovour of polling station at Government Girls Middle School (GGMS) Chamial have not been counted for him by the Presiding Officer.

v, The aforesaid application for recounting/ correction of the appellant was rejected by the Presiding Officer on 04.04.2022 on the ground that the process of consolidation of results has already been completed but on the same doy i.e. on 04.04.2022, the Presiding Officer requested the Returning Officer through an application -for the correction ofform XXVII qua the entries of votes of the appellant in the seme vi. On 05.04.2022 the Returning Officer showed his inability to agree with the request of the Presiding Officer, however, he passed thefollowing observotions that;

V "The presiding qfficer awaked qfter three dqts passing -from the sweet dreanu. Moreover, the process of consolidation has been completed, therefore, cannot be acceded, the applicant mqy

'l'ahir Saleem (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justioe Muhammad ljaz Khan

I

approach to the proper forum if advised so".

vii. Thereafter, the appellant rushed to The Worthy Election Commission of Pakistan, however, during the pendency of his application before The Commission the gazette notification regarding returned candidate wes issued on 15.04.2022, therefore, the worthy

commissioner directed the appellant to approach The Election Tribunal.

viii. The appellant thereafter filed the instant election petition before the worthy Tribunal on

3.A cursory look of the contents of the aforesaid election petition would show that the appellant has highlighted the aforesaid illegalities qua non-counting of his votes by the Presiding Officer of one polling station at Government Girls Middle School, Chamial, however, since there was a mistake in the heading of the petition by writing the word V "review petition" instead of "election petition", therefore, an application for its correction was made by the appellant within the prescribed limitation period of 45 days on 16.06.2022 which was allowed by The Worthy Tribunal. Thereafter, all the respondents Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justrce Muhammad Ijaz Khan

including the contesting respondents/returned candidates were summoned, who accordingly put their appearance and submitted their reply wherein they raised various legal and factual objections including an objection qua the maintainability of election petition, however, after hearing detailed arguments, The Worthy Tribunal held the election petition of the appellant as maintainable vide order dated 26.10.2022 and through the same order (26.10.2022) keeping in view the controversies between the parties, four issues were framed and the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence

4.The Worthy Election Tribunal at the first instance, summoned the Presiding Officer (respondent No. 5) and the Returning Officer (respondent No. 4) of polling station at Government Girls Middle School, Chamial for their evidence, who accordingly appeared and the Returning Officer was examined as PW-01, whereas, the Presiding Officer was examined V as PW-02 and both of them in their statements adrnitted that the votes cast in favour of the appellant ona the Government

Middle School, Chamial not been counted towards the appellant as he has obtained 171 votes on the said Tahir Saleem (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

whereas the same

shown as "zero" in Form XX (consolidated statement of result) & Form XXI (final consolidated result). In view of the above statements of Presiding Officer and Returning Officer on oath the appellant submitted an application for recounting of the votes of polling station at Government Girls Middle School, Chamial and at this belated stage the respondent No. 13 too submitted an application for summary dismissal of the election petition being not maintainable. The later application was contested by the present appellant by submitting his reply and after hearing arguments The Worthy Election Tribunal, without adjudicating upon the application of the appellant for recounting of votes, accepted the aforesaid application of returned candidates and thereby summarily dismissed the election petition of the present appellant vide impugned order & judgment dated 25.01.2023 which f7 order has now been challenged by the appellant through the instant appeal

3.Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the returned candidates and of the Election Commission were heard in Tahir Saleem (S B.) I-[on'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

I

considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance

6.As stated in the preceding paras that the election for the seat of general councilor of Union Council Karori-I, District Mansehra was held on 31.03.2022 whereas the consolidation statement of result was issued by the Presiding Officer on 02.04.2022 and on the same day (02.04.2022) the final consolidation result was also issued by the Returning Officer and after issuance of the aforesaid notifications when the appellant noted an apparent mistake in the official results where his 171 votes were not shown/counted therein so he then and there submitted an application on 03.04.2022 highlighting the above said glaring, apparent and clerical mistake of the Presiding Officer of Union Council concerned, however, his application was declined on the a ry ground that since the process of consolidation of results has been completed, therefore, they have become .functus o.frcio. Thereafter, the appellant rushed to The Election Commission of Pakistan at Islamabad, however, during the pendency of his Tahir Saleem (S B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

petition before The Election Commission of Pakistan, the gazette notification of the returned candidates was issued on 15.04.2022, therefore, the appellant was directed by The Worthy Commissioner to approach the Election Tribunal and as such soon thereafter and within the prescribed limitation period, the appellant filed the instant election petition.

7.It was also noted that when the instant election petition was filed, all the respondent therein were summoned and they filed their respective replies, whereby, they raised various legal and factual objections including an objection qua the maintainability of the election petition and it was due to the aforesaid objection of the respondents that detailed arguments were heard by The Election Tribunal and through a

comprehensive order dated 26.10.2022 the instant ( ,y/ election petition was found as maintainable and thereafter issues were framed and the appellant was directed to produce his evidence and as a first instance, the Presiding Officer and Returning Tahir Saleem (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

Officer of the polling station, at Government Girls Middle School, Chamial were summoned.

8.The record further reveals that the Presiding Officer and Returning Officer of Government Girls Middle School, Chamial appeared in the witness box on 16.1 1 .2022 and 09.12.2022 respectively, whereby, the Presiding Officer while appearing in the witness box as PW- 02 has admitted as under

"Thot in the said election he acted as presiding fficer and that the I7I votes councilor the said pollins station of the Government Girls Middle School, Chamiol were inadvertentlv written as 0 zero duri co lation o result instead of 171 votes in Form XVII later- on I Submitted application to the returning fficer for coruection in Form XWI which was rejected by the returning fficer".

v In view of the above categoric admission qua his inadvertent mistake of not counting the votes of the appellant, the appellant there and then submitted an application for the recounting of the votes but the learned Election Tribunal without Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

l0

deciding the said application of the appellant, entertained the application of the returned candidates and thereby summarily dismissed the election petition of the appellant being not maintainable.

9.In view of the above backdrop when it is seen that as to whether the impugned order of the Election Tribunal is legally maintainable and sustainable then one fails to understand that earlier too the respondents/contesting candidates had agitated the same plea to the effect that the election petition is not maintainable, however, after hearing arguments from all the parties The worthy Election Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the election petition is maintainable vide his order dated 26.10.2022 and thereafter issues were framed and even partial evidence was recorded then in such an eventuality, The Election Tribunal was ry required to have done substantial justice and it should have not been succumbed to the technicalities or if at all any plea was prima facie having any substance then the same should have been deferred till the final judgment. The learned Tahir Saleem (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

Tribunal was witnessing the process of recording of evidence and when the Presiding Officer and the Returning Officer appeared before it in the witness box and they candidly and fairly stated that they have committed a mistake by not counting 171 votes of the appellant towards him then the learned Tribunal should have been discharged its statutory duff to ensure that the dispute agitated before it is decided in a fair, just and transparent manner but he by adopting a shortcut way outrightly dismissed the election petition of the appellant, therefore, on the face of record it has not been done a substantial justice to the appellant and has succumbed to the procedural technical ities.

10.During the course of arguments, the main emphasis of the learned counsel representing the returned candidate was that since the appellant has failed to file the election petition in a proper form and he has failed to fuIfill all the prerequisite formalities, f/ therefore, The Election Tribunal has rightly dismissed the election petition. He further pressed hard that non-compliance of Rule 54 8. 56 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Conduct of Elections) Rule 2021 -lahir (S.B ) Saleem Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

t2

(hereinafter is to be referred as The Rules of 2021) are mandatory in nature as its non-compliance warrants dismissal under Rule 6l and for such grounds the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents made reference to section 63 of The Representation Of The People Act 1976 (hereinafter is to be referred as The Act of 1976) and section 145 of The Elections Act, 2017 (hereinafter is to be referred as The Act of 2017) and many judgments of the apex court which are based on the aforesaid provision of The Act of 1976 and The Act of 2017, however, since the local government elections were being held on the grassroots level where majority of the candidates are rusty illiterate and the election of the local government are conducted under The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Govemment Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2021, therefore, the legislatures in their wisdom and rightly so have coached the language of the aforesaid Act of 2013 and of The Rules Of 2021in a lenient manner as in Section 63 of The Act of 1976 as well as in 145 of The Act of 2017 the word "shall" has been used where-under the Tribunal has been authorized to Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

dismiss the election petition if the provisions under Section 54 or Section 55 of The Act of 1976 and Section 142, 143 or 144 of The Act of 2017 have not been complied with, however, in The Act of 2013 there is no such provision of summary dismissal of an election petition, whereas, under the Rule 61 of The Rules of 2021, The Election Tribunal "may" dismiss the election petition if Rule 54 and 56 have not been complied with, therefore, there is a clear distinct intension of the legislature behind Section 63 of The Act of 1976 Section 145 of The Act of 2017 and Rule 61 of The Rules of 2021 as in the former two statutes The Election Tribunal has been authorized to dismiss the election petition whereas in the latter one by using the word "may" it has been left to the discretion of The Election Tribunal to decide the same keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The aforesaid provision of The Act of 1976, The Act of 2017 and The Rules of 2021 being relevant for the present V controversy, therefore, the same are reproduced below for ready reference

Section 63 of The Act of 1976.

Dismissal of petition during trial.-The Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition, if-

(a)the provisions of section 54 or section 55 have not been complied with; or

Tahir Salecnr (S.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

t4

(b)f the petitioner fails to make the further deposit r e quir e d under sub s e c tio n.

Section 145 of The Act of 2017.

Procedure before the Election Tribunal.-(l) II ary) provision qf section 142, 143 or 144 has not been complied with, tfie Election Tribunal shsll summaribt re-iect the election petition.

(2)If an election petition is not rejected under sub-section (l), the Election Tribunal shall issue notice to each of the respondents through-

(a)registered post acknowledgement due,' @ courier service or urgent mail service;

(c)any electronic mode of communicqtion, which may include radio, television, email and short messqge service (sms),'

(d)ffixing a copy of the notice at some consptcuous part of the house, ,f any, in which 5I the respondent is known to have last resided or at o place where the respondent is known to have last corried on business or personally worked for gain; (e) publication in two widely circulated daily newspqpers at the cost of the petitioner; and O any other monner or mode as the Tribunal may deemfit.

Rule 61 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Rules of 2021.

Dismissal of petition during trial.---The Election Tribunal mav dismiss an election petition if-

(a)the provisions of rule 53 have not been complied with; or

(b)the allegations contained therein qre vague or do not disclose the commission of any corrupt practice, material iruegulority, or other illegal act.

Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

Later-on an amendment was made in Rule

61 whereby Rule 53 was deleted and Rules 54 & 56 were inserted, which is also reproduced below;

Amendment In the said rules, in rule 6l , in clause (a) for the word and figure "rule 53" the words figures "rules 54 and 56 " shall be substituted.

The comparative study of the aforesaid provisions of law would show that in case of The Act of 1976 election petition shall be dismissed under section 63 of The Act ibid by The Tribunal if the provision of section 54 with respect to the parties to the petition and the provision of section 55 which pertains to the contents of petition including the verification of the documents have not been complied with.

Similarly, under The Act of 2017, the provision of section 142 pertaining to the presentation of petition which also includes sending of election petition along

I

with annexure to the respondent through the registered post and the provision of section 143 perlaining to the parties to the petition and the provision of section 144 pertaining to the contents of the petition including the verification of the pleadings have been made Tahir Saleem (S.B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

mandatory, and in case of violation of the aforesaid provisions of The Act of 2017 The Election Tribunal under section 145 shall summarily reject the election petition.

As against this, in The Act of 2013 no such provision of summary rejection of the election petition has been provided by the legislature, however, under Section ll2 of The Act of 2013 power to make Rules has been conferred on the Provincial Government and as such by exercising the aforesaid powers, the Provincial Government has framed The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2021where too the Election Tribunal has been conferred with the power that it "may" dismiss the election petition if the provision of Rule 54 and Rule 56 are violated.

The distinguishing features of The Act of 1976 and The Act of 2017 on one hand and or The Act of 2013 on the other hand would show that in the former a

two Acts of the parliament which are parents statutes the power has been conferred on the Election Tribunal to reject the election petition summarily, whereas, in the of case of provincial statute i.e. The Act of 2013 no such power has been conferred on The Election Tahir Saleern (S.B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

t7

Tribunal to dismiss the election petition summarily, therefore, all the objections of the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents would be of no help for him as all of his emphasis was on the provision of The Act of 1976 and of The Act of 2017 .

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 13 also relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court, the detail which are as under;

l) "Sardarzada Zafar Abbas & others vs. Sved Hassan Murtaza & others" (PLD 2005 Supreme Co

2)$Mqlik Umsr Aslam vs. Sumera Malik & another', (PJL 2!07,Supreme Court 362\

3)"Moulvi Abdul Oadir Ll/assay & others" (2010 SCMR 1877)

(2014 scMR tots)

5)"Hina ManzooF vs, M0 " (PtO Z0tS Supreme Co

6)"Sultan Mahmood Hini Mustafa Khar & others'@.

however, all these judgments of the Apex courts ,0./ pertains to The Act of 1976 and The Act of 2017 and not a single judgment of the Apex court or of this court on this subject pertaining to The Act of 2013 has either been produced or cited by the learned counsel for the respondents.

Tahir Saleem (S B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

11.It was also noted that in Sections 63 of The Act of 1976 as well as in Section 145 of The Act of 2017 the word "shall" has been used to the effect that the Tribunal shall dismissed the election petition if the mentioned provision therein are violated, however, as stated hereinabove in The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, no such power on The Election Tribunal has been conferred and even under Rule 61 of The Rules of 2021 the word "may" has been used, therefore, on this touchstone too the provision of The Rules of 2021 could not be treated as mandatory. It was also noted that though under section 63 of repealed Act of 1976 the word "Tribunal shall dismiss" was provided, whereas, under section 145 of The Act of 2017 the word "Tribunal shall summarily reject the election petition" has been provided.

Similarly, under Rule 6l of The Rules of 2021 the word "Tribunal may dismiss the election oetition" has been provided and as in legal parlance "rejection" and a

V "dismissal" of a lis are distinguishable from each other and the circumstances under which the rejection and dismissal of lis are to be pressed are also distinct from each other as rejection is always made at the initial stage of the proceedings whereas dismissal is made Tahir Saleem (S.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

t9

after the conclusion of the proceedings and thus prima facie it appears that the legislatures have intentionally used these words in the aforesaid statutes

12.It may be clarified that the word "shall" and "may" though are interchangeable but the same has to be interpreted depending upon the context and the language in which they were used. In the case of "Muhummad Saleh ys. Tim Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore & 2 others" reported as PLD 1972 SC 326 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the words "*ay" and "shall" are inter-changeable, depending on context to which they are used.

Likewise, in the case of "Orient Power Companv (Privatd Limited throush Authorized Officer vs. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited throush Manseins Director" reported as 2021 SCMR 1728 The Apex Court while interpreting the word "shall" and "may" has held that words "may" and "shall" in legal phraseology were interchangeable, depending on the a { context in which they were used, and were not to be interpreted with the rigidity which was attributed to them in ordinary parlance. Similarly, the Sindh High Court in the case of "Iqbul Hussain vs. Moszom Zoheer Khan and another" reported as 2016 CLC Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

1348 has categorically held that if word "may" was used in a provision of law then same would be only directory and not binding, whereas, if the word "shall" was used then it would be mandatory and must be complied with especially if adverse consequence might fall. The Lahore High Court in the case of "Moiid Bukhari vs. The State" reported as PLD 2000 Lahore 108 has held that the words 'shall' and'may' used in a provision are interchangeable.

13.As stated herein above, that the mandatory nature of Section 63 of The Act Of 1976 and Section 145 of The Act of 2017 have been interpreted by the Apex Court as well as by different High Courts of the country as mandatory, however, there is no judgment available on the subject where Rule 6I of The Rules 2021 has been held as mandatory rather on the other hand the directory nature of Rule 61 of The Rules of 2021 which is the verbatim copy of the Rule 51 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2014 came up before a Division Bench of this court in the case of "Muhammad lqbal vs. Nabi Ahmod" reported as 2017 YLR 2019 where it was held in categorical language to the effect that the Tahir Saleem (S.B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljaz Khan

'l 2t

Election Tribunal could ratify and allow a party to amend its pleadings and to veriff on oath the whole election petition and it was further held that such technicality should be ignored in strive for just cause of furtherance of justice and it has funher been held that Rule 5l of the earlier Rules named The Rules of 2014 and Rules 6l of The Rules of 2021 is directory in nature and it has been left to the discretion of The Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under The Rules either to dismiss the election petition or not keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further held that the provision of The Act of 1976 are mandatory, whereas, Rule 5 I now Rule 6l of The Rules of 2021 are directory in nature. Similarly, another Division Bench of this court in the case of "lehangir Khan vs. Muhammad Asif Awsn reported as PLD 2017 Peshawar 111has held that the election petition was wrongly dismissed on the ground that annexures were not attested by the oath a

commissioner/notary public and it was further held that Rule 51 now Rule 6l of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2021 does not provide any penalty rather dismissal of the Tahir Saleem (S.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

I

election petition due to non-compliance of certain rules has been left to the discretion of the Election Tribunal and it has further been held that Election Tribunal could exercise discretion in order to advance the requirements of the law and justice and to decide the election petition on merit on the basis of evidence and material brought before it. It was further held that summary disposal of election petition on technical ground has to be avoided.

t4 In view of the above discussion and jurisprudence developed so for on the subject, it could be gathered that though the provision of The Act of 1976 and of The Act of 2017 qua the summary rejection of the election petition are mandatory but Rule 61 (earlier Rule 51) of The Rules of 2021 are directory in nature and thus the Election Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the election petition of the appellant specially in the middle of the proceedings. ,rr 15. It is also relevant to mention here that it is the constitutional and statutory duty of the courts/Tribunals to do substantial justice and they should always avoid to opt for technicalities so as to get rid of the lis pending before it and now after Tahir Saleem (S.B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad ljazKhan

I

passing of the 1Sth Amendment in The Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan where Article l0-A was inserted and as such the "due proce ss of law" rvhich also includes a "fair trial" has been recognized and acknowledged as a one of the fundamental right of every citizen. The due process of law also includes/ means that no party to the lis has to be deprived from proving his/her case as per the requirement of law. It is also the duty of the court that while parting justice it has to see the substance of the lis, material and evidence and after considering the same it has to decide the lis with a clear declaration that as to who is entitled for the relief in the lis pending before it. It is also the duty of the court/Tribunal that it should avoid procedural technicalities and should adopt a dynamic approach to do complete justice, however, in the present case apart from the pleadings of the parties when PW-01 and PW-02 appeared before The Worthy V Tribunal and they recorded their statements on oath by acknowledging and recognizing their mistake to the effect that l7l votes of the appellant have not been counted towards him in the relevant polling station then thereafter the Tribunal should have been gone for Tahir Saleem (S.8.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

I

the decision of the case on merit rather than entertaining an application for summary dismissal of the election petition and that too in the middle of trial, therefore, The Election Tribunal has not come up what was required from it by The Constitution and the law of the land, therefore, on the above touchstone too, the impugned order of The Worthy Tribunal is not legally sustainable. In the case of " Federation of Pakistan throush Secretarv Finunce, Islumabod and another vs. E-Movers (PVT.\ LIMITED and unother" reported as 2022 S C M R l02I,wherein it has been held that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen and any person who exercises authority must do so in accordance with law.

16.In view of the above discussion and exposition of law on the subject, it is held;

I That the provision of The Representation of the People Act (since repealed) i.e. Sections 54, 56 &, 63 and the provision of The Election Act 2017 i.e. Section 142, 143, 144 & 145 are mandatory in nature, whereas, Rule 54 of The Tahir Saleem (S B ) Hon'ble Mr. Justicc Muhammad Ijaz Khan

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2021 is directory in nature.

ll That when once The Election Tribunal held the election petition as maintainable through a speaking order and thereafter issues were framed and even evidence of material witnesses was recorded then thereafter the Election Tribunal should have been decided the election petition on merits instead of entertaining an application for the summary dismissal of the election petition.

llt That the impugned order/judgment of The Election Tribunal dated 25.01.2023 being against the aforesaid mandate of law is set aside and consequently the election petition of the appellant is to be deemed pending before it and The Election Tribunal shall proceed with the same in accordance with law, however, it shall decide the fate of the application of the appellant for recounting of votes within 10 working days from the receipt of the order of this court and shall thereafter decide the election petition either on the basis of outcome of the Tahir Saleem (S B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan

application for recounting of votes or on the basis of evidence of the parties, as the case may be. Order accordingly.

Announced

20.t0.2023

JADGE

Tahir Saleem (S.B ) Hon'ble Mr' Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan