BEFORE THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL OF N.A.

152,
MULTAN V.

E.P. No. 176/2002

Syed Javed Ali Shah Vs. Asad Murtaza Gilai & two
others

ELECTION PETITION
Written statement on behalf of respondent no. 1.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the petitioner has not served a copy of the Election

Petition, along-with all the documents annexed therewith, to
the answering respondent before filing the Election Petition.
As such, he has not complied with the mandatory provisions
of law. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable and is liable
to be dismissed in limine.

2. That the petitioner, at the time of official counting, moved an

application before the Returning Officer for the recounting of
votes which was acceded to and accordingly re-counting was
done in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner, Syed
Ishtiaq Ahmad Bokhary and Syed Muhammad Afaq,
Advocate, counsel for the answering respondent No. 2 and
resultantly, no mistake was found in the counting announced
earlier. However, the petitioner, finding the result of the re-
count to be not favourable to him, had not signed the
 statement of the re-count. The exercise of recount having
already been done at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore,
the petitioner is now estopped to challenge the count of votes
again in this petition or to demand fresh recounting of votes.

ON FACTS: -

1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the petition are formal and
needs no reply.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the petition are correct.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the petition are incorrect

and are not admitted. There had not been any violation of the
legal provisions and rules. No irregularity of any kind or any
undue help and favour was shown to the respondent No. 1, by
the polling staff, at any of the Polling Stations of the
Constituency at the time of poll and also at the time of the
counting of the ballot papers. It is absolutely incorrect that the
respondent No. 1 was supported by the polling staff on the
polling day or at the close of the polling time or at the time of
counting of the votes. There is no question of connivance of
the polling staff with the answering respondent or respondent
No. 2. It is also incorrect that the respondent No. 1 had been
supported by the rival Noon group of the petitioner. It is
absolutely incorrect that any undue favour or illegal help was
given to the answering respondent by any of the political
groups or the polling staff at the Polling Stations. It is,
however, correct that the father of the answering respondent
is the Sajjadah Nasheen of the holy shrine of Hazrat Musa
Pak Shaheed, but it is absolutely incorrect that the members
of the polling staff were the followers of the answering
respondent’s father. The rest of the para is all-incorrect and no
part of it is admitted with the clarification that no illegal and
corrupt practice was done on the polling day. It is also
incorrect that there was any difference between the number of
ballot papers issued and those taken out from the Ballot
Boxes. It is also incorrect that the number of the ballot papers
counted was more than the number of the ballot papers issued
at various Polling Stations of the Constituency. It is also
incorrect that the result of the count declared by the Returning
Officer in Form 17, under Rule 28 of the Election Rules 1977,
was incorrect in any manner. The allegation that there were
found 6000 votes in excess, as compared to the total number
of ballot papers issued is also baseless and false. The
answering respondent’s margin of 1156 votes victory, cannot
be said to be with a narrow margin and it can not be made a
justification for filing the instant election petition.

In this respect, it is further submitted that the details

given in the sub paras No. (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv), regarding the
allegation that invalid ballot papers were counted in favour of
the answering respondent, are all incorrect and baseless. Sub-
parawise reply is as under: -

(i) That the contents of sub-para (i) that at Polling Statioin

No. 44 High School Chak RS 30 invalid votes were
declared valid and counted in favour of the answering
respondent and 19 invalid votes were declared valid
and counted in favour of respondent No. 2; and 5 valid
votes of the petitioner were declared invalid by the
Polling Staff, are incorrect and false. It is also incorrect
that unmarked and un-signed ballot papers were also
counted. No invalid ballot paper was counted in favour
of the respondents.

(ii) That the contents of the sub-para (ii) are incorrect.

None of the ballot papers containing any thumb mark
on the symbol of the answering respondent or marked
against symbols of 2 candidates was counted in favour
of any of the respondents at Polling Station No. 48
Primary School, Daira Pur.
(iii) That the allegation contained in sub-para (iii) about the
Polling Station No. 129 Middle School for Boys, Chak
No. 11/Faiz, are concocted and false. No ballot paper
without any prescribed mark and signature of the
Presiding Officer was counted in favour of the
answering respondent.

(iv) That the contention of the petitioner that at Polling

tation No. 137, Middle School Qadir Pur Lar, any
violation of the law, regarding the counting of votes,
done by the respondents No. 1 and 2, with the help of
the polling staff, is concocted, false, incorrect and not
admitted. The allegations contained in sub-paras (a),
(b) and (c) of sub-para (iv) under reply, are all incorrect
and denied. No ballot paper without any mark or with
marks spread over more than one symbol was counted
as valid, in favour of the answering respondents.

a) That the allegations contained in sub-para (a) are

incorrect and false. No ballot paper without any
mark was counted, as valid, in favour of the
answering respondent.

b) That the contents of sub-para (b) are not correct

and not admitted. No ballot paper with mark
spread over two symbols was counted, as valid,
in favour of the answering respondent.

c) That the allegations levelled in sub-para (c) are

false, fabricated, incorrect and not admitted. No
ballot paper with mark spread over more than
one symbol was counted as valid, in favour of
respondent No. 2.

(v) That the contents of the sub-para (v), about the Polling
Station No. 151 Primary School Girls, Taraggar, are not
correct and not admitted. No vote with double stamps,
on two different symbols, was counted as valid, in
 favour of the answering respondent. In fact, no invalid
or doubtful vote was counted in favour of any of the
contesting candidates.

(vi) That the contents of the sub-para (vi) about Polling

Station No. 158 Middle School Chaddhar are false,
fabricated, incorrect and as such not admitted. No
ballot paper with un-clear mark or without mark or
without having official mark and signature of the
Presiding Officer or with marks other than the
prescribed marks, was counted, as valid, in favour of
the contesting candidates.

(vii) That the contents of the sub-para (vii) of the petition

are not correct and not admitted. At Polling Station No.
166, Primary School Zain Pur, the ballot papers
containing double stamps, or not having official mark
or signature of the Presiding Officer, or not having
prescribed mark, were not declared valid votes and as
such no such ballot paper not counted in favour of the
answering respondent and respondent No. 2.

(viii) That the contents of sub-para (viii) are incorrect and

not admitted. The answering respondent had secured
260 votes at Polling Station No. 160 Middle School
Chaddhar, therefore, and the Presiding Officer rightly
mentioned the same in the result sheet.

(ix) That the contents of sub-para (viii) are totally incorrect

and not admitted.

(x) That the contents of sub-para (viii) are totally incorrect

and not admitted.

(xi) That the contents of sub-para (ix) are incorrect and not
admitted. At Polling Station No. 161, Middle School
Chaddhar, no ballot paper without any prescribed mark
 or signature of the Presiding Officer was counted in
favour of respondent No. 2.

(xii) That the contents of sub-para (x) are false, fabricated,

incorrect and not admitted. It is incorrect that at Polling
Station No. 162, Ghopal Pur, the answering respondent
secured 304 votes and the Presiding Officer illegally
added 10 votes in his favour, in result sheet. The fact is
that the answering respondent had polled 314 votes at
this Polling Station and the Presiding Officer has
rightly mentioned the digit of 314 votes in the result
sheet. It is also incorrect that 9 to 10 ballot papers,
which contained no official mark and signatures of
Presiding Officer, were counted as valid votes in favour
of Nawab Liaqat Ali Khan, respondent No. 2. No ballot
paper, without having official mark or without having
signature of the Presiding Officer, was declared valid
vote and as such no such ballot paper was not counted
in favour of respondent No. 2.

(xiii) That the contents of sub-para (xi) are not correct and
not admitted. It is incorrect that the answering
respondent had secured 315 votes and the Presiding
Officer, while preparing the result, illegally added 100
votes in his favour in the result sheet and digited 415
votes against his name. The answering respondent had
secured 415 votes at this Polling Station and the
Presiding Officer rightly mentioned the same digit
against the name of the answering respondent. It is also
incorrect that the Presiding Officer of the said Polling
Station and other staff of the Polling Stations, were the
disciples of Makhdoom Syed Wajahat Hussain Gilani,
the father of the answering respondent.

(xiv) That the contents of sub-para (xiv) are incorrect and

not admitted. The Presiding Officer of Polling Station
No. 173 High School Boys Qasba Maral was not the
 follower of the father of the answering respondent. It is
also incorrect that there were 40 invalid votes at this
Polling Station.

a) It is incorrect that 19 ballot papers, which

contained the thumb marks in the column of
symbol of the respondent No. 1 and had no
prescribed mark, were illegally counted as valid
votes in favour of the respondent No. 1. None of
the ballot papers containing any thumb mark or
the symbol of the answering respondent and no
ballot paper without any prescribed mark was
declared valid and counted in favour of the
answering respondent.

b) It is also incorrect that 10 ballot papers, which

had no official mark and signature of the
Presiding Officer, were counted as valid ballot
papers in favour of respondent No. 2. None of
the ballot papers having no signature or no
official mark had been counted as valid ballot
paper in favour of respondent No. 2.

(xv) That the contents of sub-para (xv) are incorrect and not
admitted. At Polling Station No. 174 High School Girls
Qasba Awal, any ballot paper having thumb mark,
instead of prescribed mark, had been counted in favour
of respondent No. 1. It is also incorrect that 4 valid
votes cast in favour of the petitioner were declared
invalid by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the
prescribed mark is not clear on those ballot papers.

(xvi) That the contents of sub-para (xvi) are incorrect and

not admitted. The answering respondent got 404 votes
at Polling Station No. 175, High School Qasba Awal
and the Presiding Officer had rightly written this digit
in the result sheet.
(xvii) That the contents of sub-para (xvii) are not correct and
are not admitted. At the Polling Station No. 176 High
School Girls Qasba, no ballot paper having thumb
mark and not having prescribed mark had been counted
in favour of the answering respondent.

(xviii)That the contents of sub-para (xviii) are not correct and

are not admitted. No ballot papers, having no official
mark or/and the signature of the Presiding Officer had
been counted in favour of the answering respondent at
Polling Station No. 177 Primary School Boys Aziz
Wala.

(xix) That the contents of sub-para (xix) are not correct and
are not admitted. At Polling Station No. 178 Primary
School Girls Aziz Wala, no ballot paper having any
writing on it, was counted in favour of the answering
respondent No. 1.

(xx) That the contents of sub-para (xx) are not correct and
not admitted. At Polling Station No. 179 High School
Girls Tale, no ballot papers which had no official mark
and signature of the Presiding Officer were counted in
favour of the answering respondent.

(xxi) That the contents of sub-para (xxi) are not correct and
not admitted. The Presiding Officer at Polling Station
No. 192 Primary School Girls was not the follower of
the father of the respondent No. 1. At this Polling
Station, the petitioner secured 444 votes in his favour
and the Presiding Officer had rightly mentioned 444
votes in the name of the answering respondent.

(xxii) That the contents of sub-para (xxii) are not correct and
not admitted. At Polling Station No. 197 Hamid Pur
Kanora none of the ballot papers containing any thumb
mark on the symbol of the answering respondent was
counted in favour of the answering respondent.
(xxiii)That the contents of sub-para (xxiii) are not correct and
not admitted. At the Polling Station No. 200 High
School Peerey Wala Hamid Pur Kanora, no ballot
paper, with less space of another symbol and much less
space than the half area in the column of symbol of
arrow had been counted in favour of the answering
respondent. The allegations of corruption levelled by
the petitioner against the answering respondent is false
and fabricated and not admitted.

(xxiv) That the contents of sub-para (xxiv) are not correct and
not admitted. The detail given in this sub-para
regarding the allegation that unsigned and having no
official mark ballot papers and ballot papers containing
thumb mark, were counted in favour of the answering
respondent are false, fabricated, incorrect and not
admitted. No invalid ballot paper was counted in
favour of the answering respondent. It is also incorrect
that pieces of paper, with certain notes, were found
attached, with the ballot papers polled in favour of the
Arrow. This allegation is also false one and no
violation of rule of secrecy had been done.

(xxv) That the contents of sub-para (xxv) are not correct and
not admitted. None of the ballot papers containing any
thumb mark on the symbol of the respondent No. 1 was
counted in favour of the answering respondent, at the
Polling Station No. 179 Primary School Girls Lar.

(xxvi) That the contents of sub-para (xxvi) are not correct and
not admitted. At Polling Station No. 204 Middle School
Boys Labar, none of the ballot papers containing marks
against symbols of 2 candidates was counted in favour
of the answering respondent. It is also incorrect that the
Presiding Officer and his family members were the
followers of the father of the answering respondent.
 (xxvii)That the contents of sub-para (xxvii) regarding Polling
Station No. 205 Middle School Girls, Labar are not
correct and not admitted. None of the ballot papers
containing mark against two symbols, was converted in
favour of the answering respondent. It is also incorrect
that the Presiding Officer of this Polling Station was
the disciple of the father of the answering respondent.

(xxviii)That the contents of sub-para (xxviii) are not correct

and not admitted. No ballot paper which did not
contain the official mark and signatures of the
Presiding Officer was counted in favour the answering
respondent at Polling Station 207 Primary School
Sultan Pur Hammar.

4. That the contents of the para No. 4 are not correct and not
admitted. It is incorrect that rigging, connivance and violation
of rules were done by the polling staff of the above-
mentioned Polling Station. It is also incorrect that they had
joined hand with the answering respondent and most of the
staff of the Polling Station was the “MUREEDS” of the father
of the answering respondent.

It is also incorrect that rigging, commission of illegal

and corrupt practice and violation of election laws were
committed during the course of counting at the behest of the
Muslim League Quaid-e-Azam (stated as KING’S PARTY)
and Government was out and out for the support of
respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the details given
in the sub-paras No. (i) to (xiii) of this para, regarding the
allegation of corrupt practice or the counting of invalid ballot
papers, counted in favour of respondent No. 2, are all
incorrect. Sub-parawise reply is as under: -

i) That sub-para (i) of the petition is not correct and not

admitted. At Polling Station No. 66 Primary School
Shah Pur, no ballot paper which contained the thumb
 impression in the column of symbol of cycle and no
prescribed marks were counted in favour of the
respondent No. 2. It is also incorrect that Presiding
Officer was under the influence of the Government.

ii) That the contents of the sub-para (ii) are not correct and
not admitted. No ballot paper which did not contain the
official mark and signature of the Presiding Officer was
counted in favour of the respondent No. 2 at the Polling
Station No. 50 Primary School Daira Pur.

iii) That the contents of the sub-para (iii) are not correct
and not admitted. At Polling Station No. 40, Middle
School Girls Sikandarabad, no ballot papers containing
more than half of the area of the prescribed mark in the
column of another candidate, as compared to the
column of the symbol of the respondent No. 1, was
counted in favour of respondent No. 1 and in the same
manner, no ballot paper of the same nature was counted
in favour of respondent No. 2. It is also incorrect that
the ballot papers containing thumb marks were counted
in favour of the respondent No. 2.

iv) That the contents of the sub-para (iv) are not correct
and not admitted. It is incorrect that the respondent no.
2 had obtained 407 votes at the Polling Station No. 74
and while preparing result sheet, it was shown that the
said respondent had secured 507 votes, by illegal
addition of the votes. At this Polling Station, the
respondent No. 2 had secured 507 votes and this digit
had correctly been written in the result sheet. No vote
which contained double stamp, one in the column of
cycle and the other one in the column of another
candidate, was declared valid and counted in favour of
the respondent No. 2.
v) That the contents of the sub-para (v) are not correct and
not admitted. It is not correct that at Polling Station No.
80 Primary School Boys, Qureshi Wala, 29 ballot
papers which had no official mark and signature of the
Presiding Officer, were declared valid and counted in
favour of the respondent No. 2. It is also incorrect that
13 ballot papers at the same Polling Station, which
contained thumb impressions against the symbol of
respondent No. 2, were declared valid and counted in
his favour. No ballot paper which did not contain the
official mark and signature of the Presiding Officer and
the ballot paper containing thumb impression, was
counted in favour of the respondent No. 2.

vi) That the contents of the sub-para (vi) are not correct
and not admitted. No ballot paper containing thumb
mark against the symbol of cycle and ballot paper
containing the double stamps and no ballot paper which
did not have clear mark, was counted in favour of
respondent No. 2, at the Polling Station No. 87 Primary
School Bangala.

vii) That the contents of the sub-para (vii) are not correct
and not admitted. At Polling Station No. 88, Union
Council Gardaiz Pur, no ballot paper containing thumb
mark and no ballot paper containing no official mark
and signature of the Presiding Officer, was counted in
favour of the respondent No. 2.

viii) That the contents of the sub-para (viii) are not correct
and not admitted. No ballot papers which were marked
with thumb impression, instead of prescribed mark,
were declared valid and were counted in favour of
respondent No. 2 at Polling Station No. 101 High
School Raja Ram.
ix) That the contents of the sub-para (ix) are not correct
and not admitted. It is not correct that 35 ballot papers
containing double stamps in more than one column of
symbol, was counted as valid. It is also incorrect that
these ballot papers containing double stamps mark
were counted in favour of respondent No. 2 at Polling
Station No. 102 High School Raja Ram.

x) That the contents of the sub-para (x) of the petition are

not correct and not admitted. It is incorrect tht there
were 11 ballot papers, with prescribed mark in the
column of cycle, were found to have five rupee
currency notes attached with them. All the ballot papers
were clean and as such no violation of provisions of
section 38 of the Representation of People Act and the
secrecy of ballot paper was done at the Polling Station
No. 103 High School Raja Ram.

xi) That the contents of the sub-para (xi) of the petition are
not correct and not admitted. At Polling Station No.
105 High School Allahabad, no ballot paper containing
thumb mark instead of prescribed mark, was declared
valid and counted in favour of respondent No. 2.

xii) That the contents of the sub-para (xii) are not correct
and not admitted. No ballot paper containing double
stamps, in 2 different columns, was counted in favour
of respondent No. 2 at Polling Station No. 106.

xiii) That the contents of the sub-para (xiii) are not correct
and not admitted. It is not correct that the respondent
No. 2 had obtained 120 votes, but at the time of
preparation of result sheet by the Presiding Officer, he
was shown to have obtained 420 votes by illegal
additon of 300 votes. The respondent No. 2 actually
had secured 420 votes and the Presiding Officer has
rightly written this figure in the result sheet.
5. That para No. 5 of the petition is not correct and not admitted.
It is not correct that after the close of polls, at Polling Station
No’s. 66, 50, 74, 80, 81, 88, 105 & 106, a large number of
bogus votes had been allowed to be cast.

a) That sub-para (a) of para No. 5 is false, fabricated,

incorrect and not admitted. It is incorrect that Presiding
Officer of the above referred Polling Station had taken out
ballot paper books from their bags and torn the ballot paper
from the counterfoils and put the thumb impression of single
man on counterfoils without mentioning Identity Card
Numbers at each and every Polling Station; had marked
themselves in the column of symbol of cycle and put it in
different ballot boxes. The elections were crystal clear and no
malpractice had been done in this regard.

6. That the contents of the para No. 6 of the petition are not
correct and not admitted. The story of corruption and
malpractice narrated by the election petitioner is self-
contradictory, false, fabricated, incorrect and not admitted.

7. That the contents of the para No. 7 of the petition are not
correct and not admitted.

8. That the contents of the para No. 8 of the petition are not
correct and not admitted. Nawab Liaqat Ali Khan is a citizen
of Pakistan and as such he was eligible to contest election.

9. That the contents of the para No. 9 of the petition are not
correct and not admitted. The ballot papers issued by the
polling staff, during the polling hours were 118752 and the
same number of votes were found to have been polled. There
is no difference in the number of ballot papers issued and
those taken out of the ballot boxes. It is incorrect that there
was a difference of more than 6000 votes in excess as
compared to the total number of ballot papers issued. It is
further submitted that no violation of the provisions of Sec-38
of the Representation of People Act, 1976 along-with the
 commission of illegal and corrupt practice, have been
committed in election proceedings. The elections are valid
and correct.

The prayer of the election petitioner is not

correct and not admitted. The election petition is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, with costs.

Under these circumstances, it is humbly prayed

that the election petition may very graciously be
dismissed with costs and special cost may also very
graciously be awarded to the answering respondent.

Respondent,

Through: -
Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah,
Advocate High Court,
93-District Courts, Multan.

Verification: -
Verified on oath this _____ day of
March, 2003 all the contents of the
above-titled written statement are true
and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Respondent
 In the Court of Mr. Justice Farrukh Mahmood,
Election Tribunal of N.A. 152, Multan V at Bahawalpur.

C.M. No. ________/2003

In
E.P. No. 176/2002

Syed Javed Ali Shah Vs. Asad Murtaza Gilani & two
others

ELECTION PETITION
Application under section 62 (3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1976, read with
section 151 C.P.C. for the amendment of the written
statement on behalf of respondent No. 1.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
The applicant/respondent respectfully submits as under: -
1. That the titled petition is pending adjudication before this
Hon’ble Tribunal and its next date is fixed for 9.5.2003.
2. That the petitioner has not verified the Election Petition in
accordance with the provisions of section 55 (3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1976 and, as such, no
reliance can be placed upon the contents of the same.
3. That the petitioner also has not appended his own affidavit in
support of the contents of his petition and verified list of
witnesses along-with gist of their evidence & Fard Pata, as is
required by the relevant legal provisions.
4. That the applicant/respondent No. 1 has inadvertently omitted
to raise the legal objection about the improper and incomplete
verification of the election petition and regarding petitioner’s
having not appended the verified list of the witnesses, along-
with gist of their evidence & Fard Pata.
5. That the applicant wants to amend his written statement, so as
to incorporate the above mentioned legal objections.
The proposed amendments are as under: -
Preliminary Objection: -
“(i) 3. That the petitioner has not properly verified the election
petition, as required under section 55 (3) of the
Representation of People Act, 1976 and as such, the petition
is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
(ii) 4. That the petitioner has not appended his own affidavit in
support of election petition and the verified list of witnesses,
along-with gist of their evidence & Fard Pata in accordance
with law and as such the petition is not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed.”
6. That the preliminary objections detailed above are legal in
nature and are also necessary for ensuring a fair and effective
trial and also for the proper determination of real question of
issue.
7. That the proceedings are yet at initial stage and if the
applicant is allowed to amend his written statement then the
petitioner will not be prejudiced in any manners.
8. That in the interest of justice and for the proper decision of
the case, the proposed amendments in the written statement
are essential.
Affidavit is enclosed.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting
this application, the applicant may very graciously be
allowed to amend the written statement and to raise
above mentioned legal objections in the body of the
written statement.
Applicant/Respondent,
Dated: 6.5.2003

Through: -
Syed Muhammad Afaq Shah,
Advocate High Court,
93-District Courts, Multan.
 In the Court of Mr. Justice Farrukh Mahmood,
Election Tribunal of N.A. 152, Multan V at Bahawalpur.

C.M. No. ________/2003

In
E.P. No. 176/2002

Syed Javed Ali Shah Vs. Asad Murtaza Gilai & two
others

ELECTION PETITION

Application under section 62 (3) of the representation of

the People Act, 1976, read with section 151 C.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Syed Asad Murtaza Gilani S/o Makhdoom Syed
Wajahat Hussain Gilani, caste Syed Gilani, R/o
Makhdom House, Ghous-ul-Azam Road, Multan.

I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and

declare as under: -
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of
May 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are true &
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT