' The petitioner was elected as a member of the Union Council of the Town Committee, Dunga Bunga, District Bahawalnagar, in the election held on 25th of September, 1979. He then voted in the election for the non-Muslim seat of the Town Committee to which Manzur Masih, respondent No, 16 was elected Thereafter, he also voted in the election to the Peasants seat and the women seat to which Ghulam Qadir, respondent No, 17 and Rehmat Bibi, respondent No, 18 were elected, respectively. He also voted in the election for Vice-Chairmanship to which respondent No, 10 was elected. Finally, he contested the election for Chairmanship of the Dunga Bunga Town Committee.
All the fifteen members including the petitioner voted. Presumably the petitioner sought votes from all the other members. The petitioner obtained seven votes as against the eight votes polled by Sardar Ahmad, respondent No, 5, who was declared elected as Chairman.
2. By means of this petition several points have been raised on the basis of which the election to the Town Committee itself is challenged. Also in the alternative the election of respondent No, 5 as Chairman, respondent No, 10 as Vice-Chairman and respondent No, 16 to the Non-Muslim Seat is also challenged.
3. The first contention of the petitioner is that for the reasons given in para. 5 of the writ petition the delimitation of the Dunga Bunga Town Committee is illegal and defective and consequently all the subsequent election of the members based on such infirm delimitation (including that of the petitioner himself), the members who represent the Special Interest Seats and the office-bearers are effected. Therefore, it is argued that the entire election of the Town Committee should be set aside.
4. It has already been noted above that the petitioner participated and voted in all the elections including that of the Members, to the Special seats and the election to the Chairman and Vice- Chairman and at no stage heretofore did he challenge the delimitation. In fact he acquiesced in the delimitation throughout and now having failed in his quest for the office of Chairman of the Town Committee, it appears that the grapes have turned sour for him. In the circumstances narrated above it is abundantly apparent that the petitioner throughout acquiesced in the delimitation accepted it and never objected. I am, therefore, not willing to examine the question of delimitation and its consequences at the behest of the petitioner. See Ghulam Fatima v.
Muhammad Hussain (1). As was observed by Anwarul Haq, J. As he then was in Muhammad Din v.
Fazal Karim (2) in the matter of discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution the Court is entitled to look at the conduct of the petitioner and to refuse relief if it finds that the petitioner himself stood by at the proper time in the hope that he might achieve a favourable result by participating in the allegedly irregular proceedings. As held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Habib-ur- Rehman v. West Pakistan P. S. C. (3), the petitioner by participating in the subsequent election for Chairmanship treated the prior election as past and closed and cannot be allowed to challenge it now. It can be examined by the proper authorities including this Court if an appropriate approach is made by any person other than the petitioner whose attack on this score is barred by waiver and acquiesce.
5. It is next contended that the election of Manzur Masih, respondent No, 16 as the non-Muslim member is illegal for the reason that he is an employee of the Municipal Committee and a certificate has been appended with the petition to this effect. It is argued that as Manzur Masih also participated and voted in the election for Chairman and Vice-Chairman which resulted in the election of respondent No, 5 as Chairman and of respondent No, 10 as Vice-Chairman, their election as such is void.
6. The attack against the election of Sardar Ahmad, respondent No, 5 as Chairman. Muhammad Amin, respondent No, 10 as Vice-Chairman is in reality based on a collateral attack on the membership of respondent No,
16. Unless respondent No, 16 is declared not to be duly elected as a member of the Town Committee, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot succeed. The question whether such a collateral attack in the nature of quo warranto is permissible has been considered in a number of cases by the superior Courts of Pakistan. The issue was last examined at length by my learned brother, Aftab Hussain, J. In judgment in the case of Malik Ghulam Mani v. Province of Pakistan (4), in which Farzand Ali's case and the other leading cases were considered. It was held therein that it is not permissible to challenge by a side wind or in collateral proceedings the right of a person to continue to hold an office. In the leading case of Farzand All v. The Province of West Pakistan (5), it was observed that to permit such attacks collaterally in proceedings not taken to test their title directly would lead to serious inconvenience to the public and to those;
(1) PLD 1976 SC 7,9
(2) PLD 1968 Lab. 544
(3) PLD 1973 SC 144
(5) PLD 1970 SC 98 ' Individuals whose interests may have been effected, and that this de facto doctrine is a doctrine of necessity to bring about regularity and prevent confusion in the conduct of public business and promote security of private rights.
7. For these reasons I am not inclined to examine the validity of the election of respondent No, 5, 10 or 16 in the manner as raised in this petition. Even in quo warranto proceedings it is legitimate on the part of the Court to test the bona fides of the relator to see if he has come with clean hands.
See Kamal Hussain v. Siraj-ul-Islam (1). However, this does not mean that the membership of the respondents afore-referred cannot be challenged by means of appropriate proceedings allowed by law.
8. There is no merit in this petition, which is rejected in limine.
(1) PLD 1969 Lah. 42