' This writ petition alongwith Writ Petition No,3834 of 2001 have been filed to challenge the orders, dated 22-7-2001 of the Returning Officer/Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur through which the nomination papers of the petitioners for Nazim and Naib-Nazim were rejected, and order dated 25- 7-2001 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners by the Appellate Authority/District Judge, Bahawalpur.
2. Since in both the writ petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Brief facts, as stated in the writ petition are that Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi filed three nomination papers, i,e, Nos.2, 5 and 6. In the first nomination paper he was candidate for Nazim and Asghar Ali Raazi, the other writ petitioner was candidate for Naib-Nazim. In the second nomination papers he opted Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar as his Naib-Nazim. In the third nomination papers his Naib-Nazim was Malik Aurangzeb. On 22-7-2001, the date of scrutiny, Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi wanted to withdraw his two nomination papers submitted by him with Asghar Ali Raazi and Malik Aurangzeb as his Naib-Nazim. Malik Aurangzeb was a 'consenting party to the withdrawal, therefore, nomination papers of Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi as Nazim and of Malik Aurangzeb as Naib-Nazim were allowed to be withdrawn. However, Asghar Ali Raazi, who was candidate for Naib-Nazim with Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi, did not agree for withdrawal of his nomination papers. The learned Returning Officer djd not allow the withdrawal of the nomination papers of Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi with Asghar Ali Raazi, Naib-Nazim, and consequently, rejected all the nomination papers of Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi vide order dated 22-7-2001. The Returning Officer/Additional District Judge held that since the nomination papers of the writ petitioners showing Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi as Nazim and Asghar Ali Raazi as Naib-Nazim and in another nomination paper Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi as Nazim and Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar as Naib-Nazim are self-destructive, hence both are liable to be rejected. Both the writ petitioners Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi alongwith his Naib-Nazim Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar and Asghar Ali Raazi filed two separate appeals before the Appellate Authority, who vide his order dated 25-7-2001 dismissed the appeal and held:-- "Now to resolve the controversy with regard to nomination paper of Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi we have to appreciate the import of rule 16(vi) of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Election Rules, 2000 which appears to be that a person may be nominated through more than one nomination paper by different proposers and seconders, but cannot be interpreted to mean that a Nazim could have different Naib-Nazim as candidate for more than one nomination paper. If this construction is given to these rules then the concept of joint candidature would be set at naught."
'Further the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge held that:-- "....a person cannot file more than one nomination paper with different Naib-Nazims, and if he does so, his all nomination papers shall stand rejected and particularly in this case where one of the Naib-Nazims namely Asghar Ali Raazi is not willing to withdraw his nomination paper but on the other hand Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi wants to contest election with Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar as his Naib-Nazim. Neither such situation can be reconciled nor permitted to exist."
4. Mr. Muhammad Jafar Hashmi, Advocate, learned counsel for Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi and one other writ petitioner has argued that the nomination papers can only be rejected when they are hit by one of the four disqualifications enumerated in clause (3) of rule 18 of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000. According to him, as the case of the petitioners does not come within the mischief of these penal provisions of law, both the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority fell in error while rejecting the nomination papers of the writ petitioners. Further adds that there is no prohibition under the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 and the Rules made thereunder as to number of nomination papers to be filed by the candidates.
Further argued that the rejection of nomination papers No,2 (jointly with Asghar Ali Raazi) could not have been accepted in view of withdrawal of Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi alone, but the rejection of the other nomination papers bearing No,5 was without lawful authority as the same was consented by both the petitioners.
5. Syed Munawar Hussain Naqvi, Advocate, learned counsel for Asghar All Raazi, writ petitioner has argued that the nomination paper of the petitioner with Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi jointly filed as Nazim and Naib-Nazim at Serial No,2, whereas nomination paper of Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi alongwith Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar and Malik Aurangzeb were separately filed at Serial Nos.5 and 6 and therefore, the nomination paper of petitioner with Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi was one which had been received first by the Returning Officer was to be accepted under rule 16(7) of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 and the remaining nomination paper which was later in time was liable to be rejected. It is also argued that section 38 of the Ordinance read with rule 18(3) of the Rules have been misinterpreted by the Tribunals below.
6. Conversely, Sardar Masood Khan, Advocate and Mr. Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that under rule 16(4) of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 a person may be nominated through more than one nomination papers by different proposers and seconders but cannot be allowed to contest elections of Nazim with different Naib-Nazim as candidates on more than one nomination papers. It has been also argued on behalf of Asghar Ali Raazi that his nomination papers being earlier in time should be accepted and the rest of the nomination papers were rightly rejected as the same have been declared void by sub-rule (7) of rule 16 of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the strength of order, dated 10-5-2001 passed in Writ Petition No,3883 of 2001 decided by Division Beneh of this Court at Multan, has argued that the petitioners' case is identical to that decided by the said Division Bench, therefore, no different view can be taken and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Meeting this point, the learned counsel for petitioners contended that the order of this Court dated 10-5-2001 passed by the Division Bench at Multan in Writ Petition No,3883 of 2001, has been suspended by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order, dated 15-5-2001 passed in C.P. No,1548/L of 2001, and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon by the respondent.
8. The controversy, which is regarding the question of fact and law is to be resolved, is that whether Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi as Nazim and Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar as Naib-Nazim can be allowed to contest the election by acceptance of their nomination papers or Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi's nomination paper as Nazim with Asghar Ali Raazi as Naib-Nazim filed jointly may be accepted and be allowed to contest the elections under section 16 of the Ordinance, paiticularly when Asghar Ali Raazi is not willing to withdraw his nomination paper. On the other hand, Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi does not want to contest elections with Asghar Ali Raazi and he is willing to contest elections with Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar as NaibNazim. To resolve the above controversy, it is relevant to read section 16 of the Ordinance, which is as under:- - "16. Joint candidacy and election.--- (1) A Zila Nazim and a NaibNazim or a Town Nazim and a Naib-Town Nazim or a Tehsil Nazim and a Naib-Tehsil Nazim or a Union Nazim and a NaibUnion Nazim shall contest election, in their respective wards, as joint candidates.
(2) The Nazim and the Naib-Nazim of a District Government or a Town Government or a Tehsil Government securing as joint candidates the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.
(3) In case a Zila Nazim and a Naib-Nazim do not secure majority of the total votes of the members of the Union Councils in the District, there shall be held a fresh election, within one week of the first election, in which the joint candidates for such offices securing the highest and the second highest number of votes shall be contestants, and the joint candidates securing the highest number of votes in the fresh election shall be declared elected."
9. There is no cavil with the proposition and the learned counsel for the parties while addressing arguments at the Bar have agreed that the intention of the Law-Makers was that Nazim and Naib- Nazim should contest election in their respective electoral area as joint candidates and section 16
(ibid) has been enacted for this purpose and to promote the mutual harmony. Practically under section 16 it is not possible for a Nazim to contest election with two different Naib-Nazims because under rule 24 of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 if there are more than two candidates then number of seats. In respect of any ward the Returning Officer shall have to allocate one of the symbols contained in Schedule I to each contesting candidate, and if this is to be done then the situation which has emerged in this case is that one symbol under rule 24 (ibid) has to be allotted to Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi alongwith Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar as Nazim and Naib-Nazim, and the other two writ petitioners Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi and Asghar Ali Raazi which may be against the basic intention and the provisions of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000. It is well-established principle of law that no provision of the enactment should be considered meaningless. The whole Statute is to be read in its A context.
It is true that a candidate in terms of section 16 could file more than one nomination papers so that in case one is not entertained on account of some technical flaw the candidate does not suffer, but it does not mean to permit a candidate to file nomination papers having different candidates as Naib-Nazim. If such construction is given to rule 16(6) of the Election Rules, this would defeat the very purpose of section 16 of the Ordinance. In this case Asghar Ali Raazi, writ petitioner is not willing to withdraw his nomination paper and Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi is not willing to accept him as Naib-Nazim. In this view of the matter, both the Tribunals are right in saying that the situation cannot be reconciled.
10.. The contention of the learned counsel for Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi and one other writ petitioner that since there is no disqualification under rule 18(3) of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, is also not sustainable because the writ petitioners have not been able to fulfil the conditions of law as provided in rule 16(3)(iii) of the Rules. We are of the opinion that the petitioners by submitting two different nomination papers of Nazim with different Naib Nazims and moreso when Asghar Ali Raazi, candidate of the Naib-Nazim with Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi as Nazim who refused to withdraw the candidature has violated the provisions of rule 16 of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 and provision,pf disqualification to contest the election by the writ petitioners was attracted.
11. Another question, which needs interpretation, is withdrawal and retirement of validly nominated candidate as contemplated in rule 20 of Elections Rules. s Validly s nominated s candidate s has s been s defined in rule 2(xxvi) as under:-- "(xxvi) 'validly nominated candidate' means a candidate whose nomination has been accepted under these rules."
' Since the application submitted by Sahibzada Farook Anwar Abbasi for withdrawal of the nomination paper with his Naib-Nazim Asghar Ali Raazi on 22-7-2001 was not consented and signed by Asghar Ali Raazi, therefore, neither the petitioners were validly nominated nor there was any question of withdrawal under rule 20 of the Rules, and since both the nomination papers were mutually destructive the same were rightly rejected at the time of scrutiny while exercising jurisdiction under rule 18 by the Returning Officer, Additional District Judge and the appeal of the petitioners was also rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
' For the above reasons, these writ petitions have no force and the same are dismissed.
'Before parting with this judgment, we have perused the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court passed on 15-5-2001 in C.P. No,1548/L of 2001 filed against the judgment dated 10-5-2001 of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No,3883 of 2001, suffice it to say that the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Multan was of a candidate for Nazim, having submitted two different nomination papers. As regards to one nomination paper a notice under rule 20, was submitted to the Returning Officer for withdrawal of the nomination paper of one set of candidates by performing the statutory duty after the acceptance of nomination paper by validly nominated candidate within the meaning of section 2(xxvi) of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, at the time of withdrawal. Here in the present case, the petitioners are neither validly nominated candidates within the meaning of rule 2(xxvi) (ibid) nor there is consensus between the Nazim and Naib-Nazim regarding withdrawal of the nomination papers.
' Writ .