' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The petitioner and the respondent No,2 are stated to be members of the Tehsil Council Shakargarh, with reference to their holding the office of Naib Nazim or Nazim of their respective Union Councils. Ch. Muhammad Tariq Anis, the Tehsil Nazim resigned on 26-11- 2007. A meeting of the house was convened on 5-12-2007 by respondent No,2 who himself was the Naib Tehsil Nazim. He was elected as an officiating Tehsil Nazim. A resolution was moved against respondent No,2 as Naib Tehsil Nazim which was carried with the requisite majority and the Election Commission of Pakistan issued a notification on 11-3-2008 declaring that respondent No,2 has ceased to hold his office as Naib Tehsil Nazim.
2. Somehow or the other a meeting was held on 8-32008 and the petitioner was elected as officiating Tehsil Nazim. The matter was referred to respondent No,1 who directed a fresh election vide letter, dated 25-3-2008 (Annex-D). A meeting was again convened on 1-4-2008 and the petitioner was elected as officiating Tehsil Nazim. On 3-4-2008 a notification was issued by respondent No,1 declaring him to be the officiating Tehsil Nazim. The grievance being made in this writ petition is that the respondent No,1 has issued a notification on 3-7-2008 (Annex-G) withdrawing notification, dated 3-4-2008 and declaring that respondent No,2 shall continue performing the functions of officiating Tehsil Nazim, Shahkargarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No,2 could not have been elected 'as an officiating Tehsil Nazim as he himself was the Tehsil Naib Nazim. Further contention is that the success of no confidence motion against the respondent No,2 resulted in his removal or recall as an officiating Nazim as well and thus the petitioner having been lawfully elected to the said office, the respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction to recall the notification, dated 3-4-2008.
Learned Addl. A.-G. Is of the opinion that in the circumstances the office of the officiating Nazim cannot be said to be vacated so as to necessitate the fresh election to the said office.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 contends that the election of his client to the office of officiating Nazim remaining intact and his client having neither been removed nor recalled, there was no question of any election to the said office. According to him, the no confidence motion was with regard to the office of Naib Tehsil Nazim only.
5. I have gone through the several documents filed by the said contesting parties. There is no dispute that the office of the Tehsil Nazim stood vacated because of resignation of the said Ch. Muhammad Tariq Anis and that the respondent No,2 was elected as an officiating Tehsil Nazim.
The parties are- also ad idem that a no confidence motion was moved which succeeded and the respondent No,2 was ceased to hold his office as Naib Tehsil Nazim vide notification, dated 11-3- 2008. The fact, however, remains that he never ceased to hold his office as an officiating Nazim to which office he was, admittedly, elected.
6. I find that the terms "Nazim" and "Naib' Nazim" have been respectively defined in section 2(xxiv) and (xxiii) respectively of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, as follows:-- "(xxiv) `Nazim' denotes Zila Nazim, Tehsil Nazim, Town Nazim or, as the case may be, Union Nazim.
"(xxiii) `Naib Nazim' means Naib Zila Nazim, Naib Tehsil Nazim, Naib Town Nazim or, as the case may be, Union Nazim."
' However, neither the term "Officiating Nazim" has been defined anywhere nor the said definitions give any impression that the term "Nazim" includes or denotes an officiating Nazim as well. For the purposes of this writ petition, section 68 of the said Ordinance provides for election of an officiating Nazim by the Tehsil Council from amongst its members and this appointment is to last till a new Tehsil. Nazim is elected under the provisions of section 156(5) of the said Ordinance. There is no provision in the said Ordinance for the removal or recall of an officiating Tehsil Nazim so elected.
7. Coming to the said contention of Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhry, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to section 158 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, inter alia, a Naib Tehsil Nazim stands restrained from contesting election to any other political office unless he resigns from the office of Naib Nazim. To my mind, the political office mentioned in subsection (1) of section 158 is an office other than a Local Government Office. However, the 2nd proviso. To section 158 does debar a member of a Tehsil Council from holding more than one office at one time.
Nothing turns on the same. The reason being that, admittedly, the respondent No,2 is no longer holding the office of the Naib Tehsil Nazim and her was certainly not holding the said office when the petitioner is stated to have been elected as an officiating Tehsil Nazim on 1-4-2008.
8. I have also noted that section 156(5) of the said Ordinance lays down in mandatory terms that a vacancy of Tehsil Nazim shall be filled through bye-election within 120 days of the occurrence of vacancy in terms of section 148 of the said Ordinance.
9. For all that has been discussed above, I do find that the respondent No,2 was duly elected as an officiating Nazim and the office never fell vacant thereafter so as to justify an election to the same the writ petition accordingly is dismissed.
10. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the Secretary, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad, who shall make immediate arrangements for election to the office of Nazim of Tehsil Council, Shakargarh, preferably within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the judgment. No order as to costs.