' AAMER RAZA A. KHAN, J.-By means of this Constitutional petition, Haji Muhammad Yusuf and 23 others have challenged the order of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority made on 16th of September, 1979, where the delimitation of the Electoral Units of Municipal Committee, Chakwal, was set aside and fresh delimitation was ordered, and further a fresh programme for the various stages of election to the Municipal Committee, Chakwal, was set out and ordered.
2. In view of the importance of the points involved I had directed the Advocate-General, Punjab, to arrange for the representation of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority before this Court for today. Mr. M. Arif, the learned Advocate-General has himself appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. The circumstances out of which this petition emanates, are, that the Electoral Units of the Municipal Committee, Chakwal, were delimited in accordance with and under Chapter III of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), after the disposal of the objections filed in this behalf. Thereafter, the Punjab Local Council Election Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) by notification in the official Gazette, issued under Rule 12 of the Rules, called upon the voters to elect members from the Electoral Units in accordance with the programme specified in the notification.
4. It appears that sometime later, it was brought to the notice of the Authority, that grave irregularities had been committed in the delimitation of the Electoral Units of the Municipal Committee, Chakwal. The Authority accordingly summoned the original records, and after satisfying itself, decided to initiate suo moto proceedings under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance VI of 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). Notices were issued to all the candidates and other respectables of the area interested in the delimitation, and they appeared before the Authority on 15th September 1979, and after hearing them the Authority made the impugned order afore referred on 16th of September, 1979, (hereinafter called the impugned order).
5. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition contended firstly, that the revised election, programme for the filing of nominations, scrutiny, filing of appeals, withdrawal etc., ordered in the concluding part of the impugned order as a consequence of the fresh delimitation had not been notified in the official Gazette, as required by Rule 12 of the Rules and in the absence of such notification, the programme ordered had no legal force. Secondly, it was contended, that the Authority had no power under section 17 of the Ordinance to make the impugned order.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Advocate-General, Punjab.
7. In order to fully appreciate the contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules relied upon by the learned counsel :- "Section 15 (3).-The Election Authority shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed."
"Section 17.-The Election Authority may issue such instructions and exercise such powers including the power to review an order passed by an officer under the Ordinance or the rules, and make such consequential order as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring that an election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules."
"Section 23 (1).-Elections to local councils shall be conducted in such manner as may be prescribed."
"Rule 7. -Delimitation of Electoral Units.-
(1) The electoral units of a local area as may have been determined by the Election Authority shall be delimited by the Delimitation Officer under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Authority.
(2) A Delimitation Officer may, for the purpose of delimiting the electoral units make such inquiries and examine such record as he may deem necessary and consider such representations as may be received by him.
(3) The decision of the Delimitation Officer shall be final.
(4) The Delimitation Officer shall make such amendments, alterations or modifications in the preliminary list of electoral units published under rule 6 as may be required by his decision on any objection or suggestion and may also make such other amendments, alterations or modifications in the said list as may he necessary for correcting any error or omission.
(5) After making amendments, alterations or modifications, if any, under sub-rule (4), the Delimitation Officer shall publish at his office and at the office of the Local. Council the final list of electoral units in Form I and shall forward such number of attested copies to the Election Authority and to such other officers or authorities as the Election Authority may direct."
"Rule 12.-Notification for Election.-(1) For the purpose of holding election of a member to a local council the Election Authority shall, by notification in the official Gazette, call upon the voters to elect a member or members as the case may be, from each electoral unit.
(2) In the notification issued under sub-rule (1), the Election Authority shall, in relation to each electoral unit specify-
(a) a day on or before which nomination of candidates is to be made ;
(b) a day for scrutiny of nomination papers ;
(c) a day on or before which candidature may be withdrawn ; and
(d) a day for the taking of the poll.
(3) A Returning Officer shall, as soon as may be, after the publication of the notification under sub- rule (1). Give public notice, in Form II, of the dates specified by the Election Authority in respect of the electoral unit or electoral units of which he is the Returning Officer and the public notice shall be affixed at some conspicuous place in his office, at the office, of local council concerned at some prominent places, within the electoral unit to which it relates.
(4) A public notice issued under sub-rule (3) shall also invite nominations and specify the time and the place at which the nomination papers shall be received by the Returning Officer."
8. In so far as the first contention of the petitioners is concerned, it is argued by Raja Muhammad Anwar, that for the purpose of holding Elections to a Local Council, the Election Authority is required by Rule 12 of the Rules to call upon the voters to elect a Member/Members from each Electoral Unit by notification in the official Gazette, and that in such notification the Election Authority is further required to specify the day before which the nomination is to be made, the day for scrutiny, the day for withdrawal of nomination, and the day for taking of the poll. Such a notification had earlier been admittedly issued, in relation to all the Electoral Units of the Punjab. However, in relation to the Municipal Committee, Chakwal, the election programme was revised by the Authority by its impugned order and fresh dates were specified. By reference to the provisions of section 15 (3) and section 23 (1) of the Ordinance, it was argued that by virtue of Rule 12, it was incumbent upon the Authority to notify this revised programme in the official Gazette. In other words, it was urged that the mere order of the. Authority specifying the dates had no legal force and effect, until it was notified as such in the official Gazette, which it was asserted had not been done in the present case. The fact the revised programme had not been notified in the official Gazette was not controverted by the learned Advocate-General.
9. In reply, the learned Advocate-General contended that the delimitation of the Units of Municipal Committee, Chakwal, was carried out in accordance with the provisions laid down in Chapter III of the Rules and thereafter a notification had been published in the official gazette specifying the dates as required by Rule 12 of the Rules. He referred to the provisions of Section 17 of the Ordinance, to contend that the Authority was vested with the powers to issue such instructions, and exercise such powers, including the power to review an order passed by an officer under the Ordinance or the Rules, and to make such consequential orders as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring that an Election is conducted honestly, justly, and fairly, and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules. He contended that the Authority in exercise of its powers under Section 17 reviewed the delimitation of the Municipal Committee, Chakwal, on 16th September 1979, in consequence of which it became necessary for it to specify fresh dates. The learned Advocate-General submitted that for the purpose of giving full effect to its orders the Authority had the power to issue the necessary consequential orders as provided for in Section 17, and contended that the revised programme contained in the impugned order was in the nature of a necessary order, consequential to the basic order of the Authority, setting aside the earlier delimitation of seats of the Electoral Units of the Municipal Committee, Chakwal, and ordering fresh delimitation. He argued that the fresh programme of Election contained in the impugned order was in continuation of the earlier programme, admittedly lawfully notified in the official gazette under rule 12 of the Rules, and it was not required to be notified in the official Gazette.
10. I am afraid I cannot agree with the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was incumbent on the Authority to publish the revised programme, ordered in its impugned order in the official Gazette under rule 12 of the Rules. Rule 12 aforesaid only stipulates that the Authority shall call upon the voters to elect members from each Electoral Unit by means of a notification to be published in the official gazette, and that such notification is to specify the various dates for nomination, scrutiny etc. This has admittedly been done and the dictates and requirements of the law have been satisfied. I am agreed with the learned Advocate-General, that if as a consequence of an order made by the Authority under Section 17 of the Ordinance it becomes necessary to rearrange the programme for nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal etc., the law does not require such revised programme also to be published in the official gazette, and Rule 12 of the Rules will not be attracted to such a case which only relates to the first notification.
11. The power of the Election Authority under Section 17 is not trammeled by the provisions of Section 15 (3) and Section 23 (1) of the Ordinance as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. They all have to be read together. Under Section 17 the Election Authority is empowered to issue instructions and exercise such powers as are necessary for ensuring honest, just and fair elections and for this purpose it can make all consequential orders as are necessary, and may also review orders passed by an officer under the Ordinance, so that the Elections are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules. The order of the Authority in this case specifying a revised election schedule is in the nature of a consequential order which is not required to be notified in the official Gazette. Orders of the Authority under Section 17 cannot be declared to be ineffective and of no consequence merely because they are not notified in the official Gazette. However, there is nothing to prevent the Election Authority from doing so.
12. It was not the 'petitioners' case before me that the candidates or their supporters or the public at Chakwal were anaware of the revised schedule. It is admitted that all concerned had notice of the suo mato proceedings before the Authority, and those interested appeared before the Authority before the impugned order was passed. The first contention is accordingly repelled.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended secondly, that in accordance with Section 15
(3) and Section 23 (I) of the Ordinance the Authority may only exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed, and further that elections to the Local Councils are to be conducted by the Authority in such manner as may be prescribed. It is argued that Section 17 of the Ordinance is subject to the afore-referred two Sections, and accordingly, the Authority has no power to set aside a delimitation finally carried out under Rule 7, and to delimit the Electoral Units of the local area afresh or to review or revise an election programme which has been finally notified under Rule 12 of the Rules. He drew attention to the provisions of Rule 7 (3) in accordance with which the decision of a Delimitation Officer is final, and also to Rule 12 to argue that once a notification is published in the official gazette by the Authority under Rule 12 it is final and cannot be reviewed. He contended that as such, the Authority had no power to revise the delimitation, or to order a fresh programme for various stages of Election at variance with the programme originally notified.
14. I cannot agree with the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is an accepted and time honoured rule of interpretation that the provisions of statute are to be interpreted in harmony with each other and not in a manner so as to nullify each other. It would defeat the very purpose and object of Section 17 of the Ordinance, which is a provision meant to provide remedy and to ensure that the elections are conducted honestly, justly and fairly, if the power conferred on the Authority by it were to be subjected to the Rules as suggested by the learned counsel.
15. Reference may be made to Section 167 of the Ordinance which authorises the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance and one purpose is to hold honest, just and fair elections and any Rule which detracts from these purposes would to that extent be of no effect. Any Rule which in any manner derogates from the fullness of the powers conferred on the Authority under Section 17 would to that extent not be sustainable, and I am not prepared to hold that Section 15 (3) or Section 23 (1) or Rule 12 or for the matter of that any other Rule can in any manner limit the powers conferred upon the Authority under Section 17. In fact, the Rules are to be read as subject to the power conferred upon the Authority under Section 17, and any rule which derogates from such power or conflicts with its provisions would not be enforceable. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that Section 15 (3) and Section 23 (1) or Rule 7 which provides that the decision of the Delimitation Officer shall be final, confer finality to delimitation once made under that Rule by the Delimitation Officer which cannot be interfered with by the Authority under Section 17.
16. If the Election Authority is satisfied that the delimitation made under Chapter III of the Rules is not honest, just or fair it can order a fresh delimitation and can also specify a fresh election programme which is not required to be published in the official Gazette.
17. No contention was raised with regard to the merits of the revised delimitation or programme. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for petitioners.
18. For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.