2014 C L C 878
[Election Tribunal Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM BALOCH ----Petitioner
Versus
AKBAR ASKANI and others ----Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous No.1118 of 2013 in Election Petition No.6 of 2013, decided on 23rd
December, 2013.
(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----Ss. 67 & 52---Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 164---Election petition ---Election for the
seat of Member of Provincial Assembly ---Examination of thumb marks appended on
counterfoils of the votes casted at polling station through National Data base and Registration
Authority ---Conditions ---Election Tribunal, powers of ---Scope ---Modern devices ---Evidentiary
value ---Contention of petitioner was that neither poll was held nor any election staff came at
specified polling station and result was fabricated ---Validity ---Election Tribunal had the powers
of civil court while determining the dispute with regard to rights and liabilities of the parties on
the basis of thei r evidence---Election Tribunal did not function as a "court" nor was its action
judicial---When Election Tribunal had to determine a dispute with regard to right or liability in
the light of evidence of the parties, then it would act judicially and enjoy t he status of the court ---
Inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils should be allowed sparingly and only when it was
essential to determine the controversy between the parties ---Controversy between the parties
could be resolved by referring the counterfoils along with used photo voter's list and statements
of count to the National Data base and Registration Authority to determine whether
impersonation had been committed or not ---Serious allegations with regard to rigging the
election process had been alleged against the respondent ---Courts were authorized to allow
producing of evidence that might have become available due to modern devices and techniques
in such cases as it might consider appropriate ---Computer technology being a modern device was
well within the ambit of Art.164 of Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984---Report of National Data base and
Registration Authority with regard to scanning of thumb marks could be produced as evidence ---
No harm or prejudice would be caused to either party rather it would be bene ficial for all those
who believed in fair and impartial election ---Both the parties would be at liberty to file
objections if any to the report of National Data base and Registration Authority and same would
be considered in accordance with law.
Riaz-ul-Haq v. Federation of Pakistan 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1308; Raja Muhammad Nasir v.
Mehmood Shaukat Bhatti PLD 2003 Lah. 213 and Sardar Abdul Hafeez Khan v. Sardar
Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni, 1999 SCMR 284 rel.
(b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----S. 67--- Inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils ---Conditions ---Conditions for inspection
of ballot papers and counterfoils were to maintain the secrecy of the ballots; the allegations made
against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate
statements of material facts; discretion conferred on the Court or Tribunal should not be
exercised in such a way so as to enable the petitioner to indulge in roving inquiry with a view to
fishing out materials for de claring the election to be void and sample inspection might be ordered
to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Election Tribunal with regard to
truth of the allegations made for a re -count.
(c) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 2 (b) ---"Document" ---Meaning--- "Document" was any matter expressed or described
upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of these means
intended to be used or which might be used for the purpose of recording suc h matter.
(d) Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 2(c)---"Evidence" ---Meaning ---All statements which court would permit or required to
be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under inquiry and such statements
would be called "oral evidence" and documents produced for inspection of the court would be
called "documentary evidence" ---"Documentary evidence" was such that could be put down on
paper, certificate, executed deeds, photographs, maps and caricatures etc.
(e) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 2(e)--- "Electronic record" ---Meaning ---"Electronic record" was data, record or data
generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilm or
computer -generated microfiche.
(f) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 2(e) ---"Data" ---Meaning ---"Data" was a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts or instructions which were being prepared or had been prepared in a formalized
manner, and was intended to be processed, wa s being processed or had been processed in a
computer system or computer network and might be in any form including computer printouts
magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes or stored internally in the
memory of computer.
(g) Co nstitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 226---Secrecy of ballot ---Scope---Voter would not be compelled by any authority to
disclose as to for whom he had voted so that he might vote without fear or favour and free from
any apprehension of its disclosure against his will---Such right of the voter was not absolute ---
Secrecy of ballot, a privilege of the voter, was not inviolable and might be waived by him to
ensure free and fair election.
Muhammad Aslam Chishti and S.A.M. Qureshi for Petitioner.
Amanullah Kanrani and Abdul Sattar Khan for Respondent No.1.
Abdul Razzaq for Respondent No.2.
Naseer Ahmed Bangulzai, A.A.- G. for the State.
Muhammad Haroon, Law Officer for Provincial Election Commissioner.
Dates of hearing: 21st, 28th November, 10th and 16th December, 2013.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. --- Petitioner Muhammad Akram Baloch
as well as respondent No.1 Akbar Askani and others contested election as candidates for the seat
of Member Provincial Assembly from constituency PB -50 Kech -III (the "Constituency") in the
general election held on 11th May, 2013. As per result published in the official Gazette of
Pakistan vide notification dated 27th May, 2013 issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan
(the "Commission"), Akbar Askani , respondent No.1, was declared as Returned Candidate
against the said seat.
2. Being aggrieved of the result of election by the Commission, the petitioner filed a
petition under section 103- AA of the Representation of the People Act 1976 (the "Act of 1976")
before the Commission to declare the poll void, which was dismissed with the observation that
the petitioner has an alternate remedy available to him in the form of an election petition before
this Tribunal, hence, this election petition under section 52 of the Act of 1976, assailing the
result, whereby respondent No.1 was declared as Returned Candidate, on the ground that
massive corrupt and illegal practices were committed by him with the help of district
administration.
3. During pendency of the i nstant election petition and recording the statements of P.W.1
Mubarak Ali, P.W.2 Abdul Waleed, P.W.3 Yar Jan and P.W.4 Sameer, the petitioner moved the
instant application with the following player:
"It is prayed that record of Polling Stations Nos.29 and 31 namely Jatjoo and Tulamb
may kindly be called for and appropriate direction be made/commission issued testing/ scanning
through NADRA to determine whether thumb- marks appended to counterfoil of the votes cast at
polling stations Jatjoo and Tulamb we re genuine or forged.
It is further prayed that in the interest of justice, learned Tribunal may in addition to
Forensic/Scanning test adopt any other procedure for ascertainment of polling at polling station
Jatjoo and Tulamb."
4. It is the case of t he petitioner that neither poll was held, nor any election staff came at
polling stations Jatjoo and Tulamb. The result was fabricated and respondent No.1 was declared
as successful and this fact can be verified through National Database and Registration A uthority
(NADRA), as fingerprints/thumb -impressions are available on the counterfoils of the used ballot
papers, which can be tallied with NADRA record.
5. Messrs Muhammad Aslam Chishti and S.A.M. Qaudri, learned counsel for the petitioner,
contended tha t respondent No.1 has won the election by adopting massive illegal and corrupt
practices in collusion with the election staff and district administration and, thus, the result,
declaring him as a Returned Candidate, is liable to be set aside. As per their contention, neither
poll was held, nor an polling staff was preset at polling stations Jatjoo and Tulamb, yet a
fabricated result was conveyed to the Returning Officer, that too, on second day of the polling. In
support of their contentions, the learned counsel referred to the statements/affidavits of P.Ws.1,
2, 3 and 4, who averred that no poll was held at the aforesaid polling stations. Learned counsel
laid much stress on the point that had the votes, allegedly, used at polling stations Jatjoo and
Tulamb been examined and excluded from the count by the Returning Officer, the petitioner
might have won the election, as there was a difference of only 54 votes between the petitioner
and the Returned Candidate and that the Returning Officer did not perform his legal duty, as he
was in league with respondent No.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the tangible
proof of rigging is also apparent on the face of record from abnormal percentage of votes cast in
favour of the successful candidate at the said t wo polling stations. As per their contention, the
Returned Candidate, who contested the election from the said constituency on the ticket of PML -
N, has obtained almost 100% of votes at the said polling stations, however, astonishingly, one
Mst. Zubaida Jal al, who also contested the election from the said constituency on the ticket of
PML -N, has not secured a single vote at the said polling stations. While concluding their
arguments, they added that the counterfoils of the total votes, cast in favour of the Returned
Candidate, may be called for from the Provincial Election Commissioner or the Returning
Officer of the Constituency as well as original used photo voters' list and the statement of count
in respect of said two polling stations and may be sent to N ADRA for examination of the thumb-
impressions on the counterfoils as well as photo voters' list, for which they are ready to deposit
the requisite charges of NADRA. They further added that this Tribunal has ample powers within
the purview of Article 164 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to allow production of any
evidence that could have become available because of modern devices and techniques.
6. On the contrary, Messrs Amanullah Kanrani and Abdul Sattar Khan, learned counsel for
respondent No.1, whil e controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the votes, polled in favour of respondent No.1, were cast by the
genuine voters and no corrupt or illegal practices were committed during the course of electio n,
however, the low turnout was due to deteriorated law and order situation, prevailing in the
Constituency. They further added that the Constituency of Kech is divided into different
categories for different considerations/reasons in favour of different c andidates, thus, to say that
casting of votes in absolute majority at certain polling stations of one constituency in favour of
one candidate was "tangible proof of rigging on the face of record", seems to be somewhat
conjectural and ill -founded. They furt her submitted that if such ground is acceptable for certain
polling stations, where respondent No.1 had secured abnormal percentage of votes cast, then the
same principle would also apply to the other polling stations, where the petitioner has secured
abnormal percentage of votes. They, while challenging the jurisdiction of this Tribunal,
submitted that this Tribunal cannot define limits of its own jurisdiction and can use only those
powers, which are specifically provided in the Act of 1976 and in the garb of interpretation, the
Tribunals have no powers to add or omit even a single word from the provisions of law. Since
there is no provision in the Act of 1976 regarding authentication of thumb- impressions by
NADRA, as such, the relief claimed for cannot be granted. While concluding their arguments,
they further added that NADRA did not have the expertise to accurately check all the thumb -
impressions, as the magnetic ink had not been used in the voting process. Even otherwise,
NADRA's expertise in this regard hardly lead to accurate results or verification, thus, the
application, being misconceived and baseless, is liable to be dismissed.
7. At the very outset, before entering into the controversy between the parties, it may be
noted that for all legal inten ts and purposes, this Tribunal enjoys the status of a civil Court, while
determining the dispute relating to the rights and liabilities of the parties in their presence on the
basis of their respective evidence. I am conscious of the fact that ordinarily, the Tribunal is not
always functioning as a "Court", nor is its action always judicial; however, the determining
factor is the nature of dispute to be resolved by it. When the Tribunal has to determine a dispute
relating to a right or liability, recognized by the Constitution or law, in the presence of the
parties, in the light of the evidence produced by them, then it acts judicially and enjoys the status
of the Court. While holding this view, I am fortified from the case of Riaz -ul-Haq v. Federation
of Pa kistan 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1308, relevant portion whereof speaks as under: ---
"40. The perusal of above case- law makes it abundantly clear that a tribunal is not always
function as a 'Court', nor its action is always judicial; however, the determining factor is the
nature of the dispute to be resolved by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal has to determine a dispute
relating to a right or liability, recognized by the Constitution or law and is under an obligation to
discover the relevant facts, in the presence of t he parties, in the light of the evidence produced by
them, it acts judicially. Besides, whenever judicial power is vested in a forum, be it called a
Court or Tribunal, for all legal intents and purposes it is a Court. Further, such Tribunals have to
be man ned, controlled and regulated in accordance with the established judicial principles. "
8. It may be noted that it is now settled by a long course of discussions of the superior
Courts that inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils should be allowed very sparingly and
only when it is absolutely essential to determine the controversy between the parties. In the garb
of seeking inspection, the defeated candidate should not be allowed to make a roving inquiry in
order to fish out materials to set aside the election of the Returned Candidate. The following
conditions are imperative before a Tribunal can grant permission for inspection of the ballot
papers and counterfoils: ---
(i) that it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballots, which is sacro sanct and should
not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;
(ii) that before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must
be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate stateme nts of material facts;
(iii) that the discretion conferred on the Court or Tribunal should not be exercised in such a
way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in roving inquiry with a view to fishing out materials
for declaring the election to be voi d, and
(iv) that on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further
assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Tribunal regarding the truth of the allegations
made for a recount, and not for the purposes of fishing out materials.
9. While considering the instant application on the touchstone of the aforementioned
criterion, I am of the view that the controversy can be set at rest by referring the counterfoils
along with used photo voter's list and statements of c ount to the NADRA authorities in order to
determine as to whether impersonation has been committed as alleged by the petitioner or
otherwise. The evidence, so far as produced by the petitioner, would show that serious
allegations about rigging the election process have been alleged against respondent No.1 i.e.
getting votes of the dead voters, absentees as well as abnormal percentage at polling stations
Jatjoo and Tulamb. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record provide reasonable justification for referring the
matter to NADRA for forensic examination/scanning of thumb -impressions appended to
counterfoils of the used ballot papers by means of biometric system, in order to determine the
fate o f allegations.
10. At this juncture, however, a question regarding the admissibility of such evidence, as
agitated by learned counsel for respondent No.1, arises and Article 164 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat
Order, 1984 (the "Order of 1984) furnished a complet e answer to the said contention, which
reads as under: ---
"164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc. In such
cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence
that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques."
11. A plain reading of the aforementioned provision of law clearly manifests that the Courts
are authorized to allow producing evidence that may have become available because of modern
devices or techniques in such cases as it may consider appropriate. Computer technology being a
modern device is well within the ambit of Article 164 of the Order of 1984.
12. There is no difficulty to resolve the controversy regarding admissibility of the proposed
evidence in respect of authentication of thumb impression by the NADRA authorities. This can
be better understood by referring the meanings of the words 'document', 'evidence', 'electronic
record' and 'data', which read as under: ---
(a) "Document ": Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by
means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of these means, intended to be used, or
which may be used, for the purposes of recording that matter;
(b) "Evidence": includes
(i) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence, and
(ii) all documents produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called
documentary evidence.
(c) "Electronic Record" Electronic record means data, record or data generated, image or
sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfil m or computer -generated
microfiche.
d) "Data": Data means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or
instructions, which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner, and is
intended to be processed, is being proces sed or has been processed in a computer system or
computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical
storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the
computer.
13. From the com bined study of the aforesaid definitions, it can easily be inferred that
documentary evidence is usually such as could be put down on paper, certificates, executed
deeds, photographs, maps, caricatures etc. However, there can be no limit to the forms in which
documentary evidence exists. Whether the report of NADRA, regarding the thumb scanning, can
be produced in evidence. obviously the answer is 'yes' for the reason that under Article 2 (b) of
the Order of 1984, any substance, on which matter has been expressed or described by means of
letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of these means, intended to be used, or which may
be used, can be considered as a document, provided that the purpose of such expression or
description is to record the matter. Similarly, electronic records mean data, record or data
generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or microfilms or
computer generated microfiche. Thus, an electronic record can safely be considered as a
document, because matt er is recorded on the computer as bits and byes, which are the digital
equivalent of figures or marks, therefore, any document produced by a computer can be
produced as evidence so long as it could be shown that the computer was functioning properly
and wa s not misused. The computer record in such cases can he admitted as evidence. The
question of admissibility of computer record was attended by Hon'ble Lahore High Court,
Lahore in the case of Raja Muhammad Nasir v. Mehmood Shaukat Bhatti PLD 2003 Lahore 213,
wherein, while dealing with section 164 of the Order of 1984, a reference was also made to the
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., para.59, which reads as under: ---
"In any civil proceedings a statement contained in a document produced by a Compute r
is, subject to rules of Court, admissible as evidence of any fact, stated in it of which direct oral
evidence would be admissible if; (1) the document containing the statement was produced by the
computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process
information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period whether for
profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (2) over that period
there was regularly supplied to t he computer in the ordinary course of those activities
information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so
contained is derived; (3) throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating
properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation
during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the
accuracy of its contents; and (4) the information contained in the statement reproduces or is
derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities."
14. Even otherwise, it is the case of the petitioner that no polling was held at polling stations
Tulamb and Jatjoo and bogus votes were cast on the said polling stations by respondent No.1.
Whether bogus votes were cast or not, is a question of fact in issue, which could be proved
through documentary as well as oral evidence and the application on the basis of which
verification of th umb- impressions has been sought from NADRA would certainly constitute
documentary evidence.
15. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the prayer
cannot be granted because by moving instant application, it seems that the petitioner has made an
attempt to establish/introduce altogether a new case, I am not impressed by the said contention
for the simple reason that in the case of alleged illegal and corrupt practices, the petitioner can
seek the aid of the Tribunal by vir tue of the jurisdiction of a civil Court residing in it as extended
by section 64 of the Act of 1976. In this respect, reference can be made to the case of Sardar
Abdul Hafeez Khan v. Sardar Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni, 1999 SCMR 284, the relevant
portion whe reof reads as under: ---
"While the rule as to specific pleadings is invokable in election petitions, such, as
discernible from section 55 read with sections 78 and 83 of the Act, is necessarily confined to
corrupt or illegal practices, attributable to the candidates or their representatives. It also goes
only as far as matters of detail, which the candidate, in the ordinary course, knew or should
reasonably have known. Many an illegal or corrupt practices, within the knowledge of a
candidate, due to an e lection being a closed door affair, may turn out only to be the tip of an
iceberg, the bulk of the deviations coming to unfold during the trial of the election petition and
duly established on record by evidence. Thus, once the candidate concerned had plea ded his case
with all details of corrupt or illegal practices coming to his knowledge, he should be free, within
the parameters fixed by his own pleadings, to resort to the powers of the Tribunal to come to his
aid in virtue of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court residing in the Tribunal, as extended by section
64 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. No candidate, who has adequately pleaded the
corrupt or illegal practices at his election should unjustifiable be discouraged, by undue strictness
in applying the law of evidence, from proving his case. As it is, holding free and fair elections is
a duty cast by law and Judges can be doing no more than discharging their obligations to the
electorate by ensuring that no one is returned to an elected offic e without having duly and
lawfully been elected. The rule pertaining to non- compliance of the applicable provisions of law
by the officers and staff conducting an election figure at yet another plane. Indeed where, in a
constituency, there is a general fai lure of the election machinery, involving non- compliance with
the provisions of the Act and the Rules the allegations can be only as much detailed as is
plausible in the given circumstances of a case. To that extent, keeping in view the brevity and
preciseness enjoined by section 55(1)(a), the petition seems to have satisfied such requirements
as there may have been."
16. So far as the contention of learned counsel in respect of secrecy of ballot papers is
concerned, undoubtedly, the principle of "secrecy of ballot" cannot be denied in view of Article
226 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (the "Constitution"), which is an
indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections. The Act of 1976 assures a voter that he would
not be compelled by any authority to disclose as to for whom he has voted, so that he may vote
without fear or favour and free from any apprehension of its disclosure against his will from his
own lips. But this right of the voter is not absolute. It must yield to the principle of "purity of
election" in larger public interest. In fact, secrecy of ballot, a privilege of the voter, is not
inviolable and may be waived by him as a reasonable citizen of this country to ensure free and
fair election. Even otherwise, it is a case of referring the counterfoils along with used photo
voters' list along with statements of count to NADRA authorities for the purposes of thumb-
impressions in order to determine as to whether the votes were cast by the genuine voters or
impersonation was c ommitted. Thus, no question of secrecy of ballot arises at all in the peculiar
circumstances of the case.
17. Reverting to the last contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the principle
of "tangible proof of rigging on the face of record", I am in agreement with learned counsel that
both the parties have come forward with the same allegations against each other. In such view of
the matter, it would not be appropriate to refer the votes of only Jatjoo and Tulamb polling
stations to the NADRA authorities for thumb authentication, as Shakespeare has said "everything
is fair in love and war" and the petitioner could not be presumed to be as virtuous as Caesar's
wife so as to be completely above board. So, the equity demands to refer the counterf oils along
with photo voters' list and statements of count of the whole constituency, particularly when
respondent No.2 has also filed a Recrimination within the meaning of section 67 of the Act of
1976.
18. It would not be out of place to mention here t hat technological innovations, particularly
biometric system, have made bogus voting very difficult if not impossible in Pakistan. The
electoral list used in 2008's General Elections contained over 37 million bogus votes, which
comes to around 45% of 81 mi llion registered voters. Since the turnout in Pakistan is between 32
and 36%, as such, such fact alone made the whole process of election 2008 questionable. After
taking a serious notice by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, election authorities with
colla boration of NADRA authorities have compiled computerized electoral rolls with voters'
pictures with intention to make possible the holding of fair and free elections in future.
Biometrics is the science of measuring physical properties of living beings and is the automated
recognition of individuals based on their behavioral and biological characteristics. The NADRA
is already in possession of biometric data i.e. biometric template, stored in a biometric enrolment
data base and can easily compare the actual biometric features i.e. thumb -impression of the voter
appended on the counterfoil with the biometric features already stored for the purposes of
comparison in the biometric enrolment database.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that the allegations provide a
reasonable justification for referring the counterfoils along with photo voters' list and statements
of count to the NADRA authorities for examination through process of biometric
examination/scanning of thumb- marks appended to c ounterfoils of the ballot papers.
20. It is also worth -mentioning that by accepting this application, no harm or prejudice would
be caused to either party, rather it would be beneficial for all those who believe in fair and
impartial election, fair play and equity. Needless to observe that the petitioner as well as the
respondents would be at liberty to file objections, if any, to the report of NADRA on
examination and scanning of votes and if such objections are raised, the same would be
considered by th is Tribunal in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of being
heard to the parties and allowing them to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions,
if so desired, before final disposal of the election petition. The Returning Off icer of the
Constituency i.e. PB -50 Kech -III is directed to produce the counterfoils, photo voters' lists and
statement of counts of all those polling stations, where the votes were cast on 31st December,
2013 at 9:00 a.m. in sealed envelopes. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite fee of NADRA
@ Rs.10 (Rupees ten) per fingerprint authentication as service charges through bank draft in
favour of NADRA Headquarters' A/c No.SSD 51009- 6, Habib Bank Limited, Foreign Affairs
Branch, Islamabad, by or before 3 1st of this month and to submit the same before this Tribunal
for its onward transmission to NADRA along with counterfoils, statement of counts and the used
photo voters' lists through its authorized representative. The petitioner shall also deposit a sum of
Rs.60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only), tentatively, towards expenditures and T.A./D.A.
allowance for the representative of the Tribunal before Assistant Registrar (Accounts), High
Court of Balochistan, Quetta, who shall deposit these papers at NADRA Is lamabad for
examination and report.
AG/9/Bal. Application accepted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.