' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---The petitioner was elected as Nazim of Union Council Goth Jangu, Tehsil Sadiqabad District Rahim Yar Khan in the year 2001 along with respondent No.2 as Naib Nazim of the said Union Council. The respondents Nos.3 and 4 who were contesting candidates for Nazim and Naib Nazim respectively, for the same Union Council and after being unsuccessful challenged the election of the petitioner and respondent No.2 by way of Election Petition before the Election Tribunal/respondent No.1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Tribunal"), on different grounds including the one that both, the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 were not qualified on the date of filing their Nomination Papers, rather were disqualified from being elected as Nazim and Naib Nazim and they contested the election without disclosing their said disqualification. The Election Petition was jointly contested by the petitioner and respondent No.2 through joint written statement dated 6-6-2001 controverting the allegations levelled in the Election Petition and praying for its dismissal. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues and put the parties at trial:-- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the election petition, schedule and document attached thereto are not verified in accordance with law? If so, its effect? OPR.
(2) Whether the respondents Nos.1 and 2 exercised and adopted illegal and corrupt practice during the elections which materially affect its result? OPP.
(3) Whether the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not qualified to contest the elections? OPP.
(4) Whether the respondents Nos.1 and 2 managed to get the result of elections changed with the connivance of the Presiding Officers concerned? OPP.
(4A) Whether there exist sufficient grounds or recounting the ballot paper with regard to seat of Nazim/Naib Nazim of Unio Council Goth Jangu? OPP.
(5) Relief.
' On the conclusion of the trial the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 21-1-2003 by answering Issues No.3 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 and while accepting the Election Petition held them disqualified to contest the elections of Nazim and Naib Nazim for Union Council Jangu, having been engaged as Contractors in the transactions involving pecuniary interest with the said Union Council and directed for holding of fresh elections of Nazim and Naib Nazim. This order of the learned Tribunal has now been challenged through this Constitutional petition.
2. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued with vehemence that the Tribunal has fallen in legal as well as jurisdictional error by declaring him disqualified on the ground mentioned above, whereas the said ground had never been available to the Tribunal at all. The contention of the learned _counsel is that at the time of filing of Nomination Papers as well as holding of elections, the relevant provisions of law in the field was Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 which provided qualifications as well as disqualifications for candidate in section 14 of the said Ordinance and subsection (0) of that section was as follows:-- "Does not engage in any transaction involving pecuniary interest with the Local Government, of which he is a member."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the word "Local Government" used in the above quoted subsection has been defined in definition clause of said Ordinance and in section 2(6) which runs as under:- "Local Government means a District Government, a City District Government, Tehsil Government, Town Government and Union Council Government".
' By referring the above quoted provisions of the said Ordinance, learned counsel stresses that disqualification contained in section 14(0) referred to above, was only applicable to those candidates who were engaged in any transaction involving pecuniary interest with the Local Government, of which they were to be elected or to hold the elective office or membership of a Local Government and as admittedly the petitioner was at the relevant time a Contractor of District Government and not Union Government/Union Council Jangu hence, he was not governed by the qualification/disqualification contained in section 14(0) of the said Ordinance. His further contention is that after the elections were over and petitioner along with respondent No.2 took oath of their office, a new namely Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 was piomulgated w.e.f. 14- 8-2001 which inter alia had the effect of repealing the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000 in terms of section 196 of the new Ordinance and the matters relating to qualifications and disqualifications of candidates/members are now governed by section 152(0), which reads as under:-- "does not engage in any transaction involving pecuniary interest with the local Government of which he is a member"
' The object of referring the new provision of section 152(0) by the learned counsel is that if any elected member incurs any of the disqualification laid down in the above said section after becoming member, the question of disqualification can only be determined by the Chief Election Commissioner in terms of section 152(2) of the new Ordinance therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any order of disqualification holding the petitioner having continued to be contractor of the local council involving pecuniary interest with the local Government, of which he is the member.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Aslam Dhukkar, Advocate has argued that although the petitioner was admittedly a Contractor of Zila Council yet in view of the definition of Local Government in section 2(xvi) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, whereby Union Administration and Union Council have been included in the definition of Local Government along with District Council, etc., the Tribunal was right in declaring disqualification of petitioner and respondent No.2 through the impugned order and thus the order of the tribunal is unexceptionable.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
7. In the impugned order the learned Tribunal has admitted the petitioner as Contractor of Zila Council, Rahim Yar Khan. But to me, the learned Tribunal was under no provisions of law right in applying petitioners Contractorship of Zila Council to disqualify him in the absence of any evidence that petitioner was either a Contractor of the Union Council Jangu or engaged in any transaction involving pecuniary interest with the Local Government, of which he is member i.e. Union Council Jangu. A bare perusal of the definition of Local Government either given in section 2(xvi) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 or in section 2(6) of Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000, both the District Government and Union Government, District Government/Zila Council and Union Administration/Union Council are distinct and independent entities having distinct and independent powers within their specific spheres of administration. Further section 4(2) of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 provides, as under:-- "Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, every local Government shall be a body corporate, known, as the case may be, by the name of the District, Tehsil, Town or Union or by such name or number as the District Government may assign, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and transfer any property held by it, and to contract and to do all other things necessary for the purposes of its constitution, and may sue and be sued in its corporate name."
' Similarly, under Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 each, Local Government i.e. District Government and Zila Council and Union Administration and Union Council have been dealt with under separate and distinct chapters. Sections 13 and 37 of the Punjat) Local Government Ordinance, 2001 talk of composition of District Government as well as Zila Council, whereas sections 74 and 87 deal with composition of Union Administrations and Union Councils. This distinction clearly indicates that District Government or for that purpose Zila Council and Union Administration or Union Council are two different and separate legal entities having their functions and working independent of each other. The learned Tribunal while deciding the question of disqualification of the petitioner and respondent No.2 appears to have been belabouring under misconception that Union Council is part of Zila Concil and the Contractor of Zila Council means Contractor of Union Council which is neither based on proper understanding of distinction between Zila Council and Union Council nor based on proper construction as well as interpretation of law as contained in Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 or Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000.
The disqualification as alleged in the Election Petition and accepted by the Tribunal would have been correct, had the petitioner been engaged in any transaction involving pecuniary interest with Union Council Jangu but by obtaining contract from Zila Council neither the petitioner violated provisions of either section 14(0) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2000 nor did he incur disqualification of either being a candidate or to hold the elective office or membership of Union Council Jangu either in view of the bar contained in section 14(0) of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000 or section 152(0) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
8. For what has been discussed above this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal declaring the petitioner and respondent No.2 as disqualified to contest the election of Union Council Goth Jangu and directing fresh elections, is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.