1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN, J.--- This appeal, by leave is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the elections to the office of Chairman and Vice- Chairman, Union Council, Belgran, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad (hereinafter referred to as Union Council) consisting of 7 members were scheduled to be held on 13-1-1992 on which date the nomination paper was filed before the Presiding Officer, respondent No,1, in which the appellant was proposed and seconded as a candidate for the election to the office of Chairman, Union Council by the two members of the Council namely Abdul Karim and Aman Ullah respectively. An other application on the same day was also presented to the Presiding Officer by 4 members of the Union Council containing information therein that they had elected Ghulam Din, respondent No,3, and Syed Sadiq Hussain, respondent No,4, as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council respectively. The Presiding Officer declared the above-named respondents as Chairman and Vice- Chairman respectively of the Union Council on the ground that they have been nominated by the majority of the members and for that reason rejected the above nomination paper of the appellant.
3. ' Feeling aggrieved by the above declaration of the Presiding Officer the appellant challenged its validity in a writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his judgment and order impugned in this appeal.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case and the law applicable to it. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned election of respondents Nos.3 and 4 are unlawful as the same have been conducted in contravention of rule 6 of the rules known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government (Elections of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) which enjoins upon the Presiding Officer to conduct the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman to the Union Council through ballot-papers bearing the names of the contesting candidates or any symbol allotted for the purpose on the simple paper to be cast in the ballot-box provided for the purpose but instead of adopting the above procedure of mandatory nature the Presiding Officer declared the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council on the sole basis of an application of its 4 members including the aforesaid respondents. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Presiding Officer by declaring the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council has not only disregarded the mandatory provisions of the rule but has also acted against the very spirit of holding elections to the offices of Union Council in a free, fair and impartial manner by the will of the majority of its members expressed through secret ballot. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in refusing to issue the writ prayed for on the ground that the filing of an affidavit sworn by the two members of the Union Council by the appellant along with his writ petition amounts to horse-trading which reasoning is not only faulty but is also unjustified in view of the fact that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had also secured the signatures of 4 members of the Union Council on the application filed before the Presiding Officer and on whose basis they were declared as elected as Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Union Council respectively.
5. ' The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has contended that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable as he had failed to avail of the alternate remedy provided in the rules against the impugned elections of respondents Nos.3 and 4 to the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Union Council. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that since 4 members out of 7 of the Union Council had elected respondents Nos.3 and 4 as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively, and their elections was intimated to the Presiding Officer through an application there was no point in going through the formality of asking the members to cast their votes through ballot-papers as such a course would have served no purpose and would have been an exercise in futility.
6. We have given our due consideration to the above respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties after which we are of the view that the procedure adopted in this case for declaring the aforenamed respondents as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council was not only unwarranted by the relevant law but also offended against the spirit which lays behind holding an election to the democratic institutions like the Union Council in an impartial and fair manner. The rules have been framed with a view to providing an opportunity to elect members of the Union Council to elect its Chairman and Vice-Chairman by expressing their free choice without any inducement and pressure through a secret ballot but the manner in which the Presiding Officer conducted the elections to the above offices in the present case and declared respondents Nos.3 and 4 as elected to the said offices has had the effect of undermining the above objective behind prescribing the specific procedure for holding the elections to the above offices of the Union Council. The bare reading of rules 5 to 13 of the rules would show that under these the Presiding Officer specified by the Collector for holding the elections to the offices of Chairman and Vice- Chairman, Union Council is required to invite the nomination on simple papers for holding the elections to the aforesaid offices on which a member of the said Union Council may be proposed by another member for election to either of the aforesaid offices. In case there is only one contesting candidate for any of the above offices the Presiding Officer shall declare him elected to that office but if there are two or more contesting candidates for it then the Presiding Officer is bound to allot a particular symbol to each one of them and the members would be called upon to cast their votes in a ballot-box provided for the purpose. The Presiding Officer shall then and there count the votes polled for each candidate and shall declare the result in presence of the members of the Council. In the instant case it is a common ground between the parties that the above procedure for the election to the office under consideration was not adopted by the Presiding Officer who declared the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as elected to the office of Chairman and Vice- Chairman respectively on the ground that on the basis of an application made to him the majority of the members i,e, 4 out of 7 have already elected them to the said offices. It is on record and is also undisputed that the appellant was duly proposed as a candidate for election to the seat of Chairmanship of the Union Council but his nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the majority of the members had already elected respondents Nos.3 and 4 as Chairman and the Vice- Chairman respectively in the manner aforesaid. Here it also needs to be mentioned that the learned Judge of the High Court in his impugned judgment has in unambiguous and clear terms held that the mode adopted in nominating the candidature of respondents Nos.3 and 4 was not regular but despite that has ignored the above fact by remarking that the same did not vitiate the election as a whole on the ground that ultimate result has not been effected and the will of the majority had been expressed and that the result would have been the same even if the strict compliance with the rules had been insisted. We think the learned Judge of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have dismissed the writ petition when he had found that the particular method prescribed by the statutory rules for holding the elections to the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman had been disregarded by the Presiding Officer and the respondents Nos.3 and 4 had been declared as elected to the aforesaid offices respectively, in a manner not warranted by law and the only course left for him was to have issued the writ of certiorari prayed for by the appellant in his writ petition. It is now settled law that if an act is required to be performed in a specific manner by law or rule it should be performed according to the prescribed manner alone or not at all. In support of the above principle of law it would suffice to make reference to a decision made by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, reported as PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 37, wherein it has been held that it is an elementary principle that if an Act or Rule prescribes a particular method of performance of an act the act should be performed according to that method alone or not at all. In this case, as said in the earlier part of the judgment, a specific procedure has been prescribed for holding the elections to the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council which the Presiding Officer was under legal obligation to follow while discharging his duties of conducting the aforesaid elections but instead of adhering to the specific procedure prescribed for the purpose he has adopted a novel and illegal procedure of declaring the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council. By acting on the application of 4 members of the Union Council presented to him his declaration of the above-named respondents as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council was an act patently wrong and without jurisdiction and taken in an arbitrary manner ignoring the provisions of law and the very spirit lying behind holding the elections to the offices of the Union Council through exercise of the will the majority of the members expressed through secret ballot.
7. ' The reasons, advanced by the learned Judge of the High Court mentioned above for not exercising the powers of judicial review to undo a patent illegality committed by violating the statutory rules by the Presiding Officer in the. Conduct of the elections to the offices of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council arc not convincing. The rules applicable in the instant case have provided a specific procedure to be adopted for holding the elections to the aforenamed offices of the Union Council which was required to be strictly observed by the Presiding Officer while performing his duty under the, rules and he had no choice and authority to declare the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council on the basis of an application of the majority of the members of the Union Council and referred to above and by doing so he has definitely travelled beyond the Province of his power and authority. If the above action is protected on the grounds mentioned in the impugned judgment by the learned Judge of the High Court then the rules prescribing the method of holding the elections to the above offices of the Union Council become meaningless and redundant. The above application could at the most be considered as nomination of the respondents under discussion but could not legally form the basis of declaring them as elected to the office of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
8. ' Similarly there appears to us no justification for refusing the issuance of writ asked for on the ground that the appellant had filed an affidavit sworn by the two members of the Union Council along with his writ petition. The above conduct of the appellant is not such as would disentitle him to seek the redress of his grievance from the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on it by the Constitution arising out of unlawful action of the Presiding Officer in declaring the above named respondents as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council.
9. For the foregoing reasons the judgment and order of the learned Judge of the High Court dated 24-5-1992 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant is set aside and consequently the elections of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 as Chairman and Vice-Chairman are declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect. The concerned Local Government Authorities are directed to hold elections to the aforesaid offices of the Union Council afresh in accordance with the relevant law and rules, and the observations made above in this judgment.