SHAFI-UR-RHHMAN, J.-The petitioner, a contestant for a peasant seat in the District Council, Mianwali seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6-10-1980 whereby the claim of the petitioner that instead of fresh elections being order he should have been declared elected after a successful candidate was found ineligible for filing the nomination paper for the special seat was dismissed.
2. Nomination papers were filed for the special seat for peasants on 3-12-1979. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed the nomination papers. The petitioner objected to their eligibility for the special sent but the Returning Officer rejected his claim. He, therefore, filed an objection petition before the Punjab Local Council Election Authority, which upheld his objection in respect of respondent No. 4, and respondent No. 5 withdrew from the contest. While that objection of the petitioner was pending, by interim order the Election Authority allowed the elections to be held subject to the final decision that they may be given by it. The elections were held and the results were not notified but it was found that the petitioner had obtained 8 votes while respondent No. 4 had obtained 11 votes. The Election Authority passed the following order while disposing of finally the objection of the petitioner: - "In view of the foregoing discussion we accept this petition and setting aside the order of respondent No. 3 dated 4-12-1979 whereby he accepted the nomination papers of respondent No. 1 as a candidate to contest the election of peasant seat of District Council, Mianwali, we rejected his nomination papers and direct that his name be deleted from the list of contesting candidates. In order to ensure fair, just and honest election it is consequently directed that fresh election shall be held to elect member to represent special interest seat of present in Zilla Council Mianwah."
The petitioner's challenge to the latter part of this order of the Election Authority directing fresh election was unsuccessful in the Constitutional Petition and Intra-Court Appeal filed by him. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel has referred us to section 15 and section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and rules 20, 21, 22, 28 of the Election Rules, and rules, 12, 13 and 15 of the Election Petition Rules. By reference to these provisions it is sought to limit and circumscribe the powers of the Election Authority in a manner and to the extent that he could only. Declare the petitioner elected and could not order fresh elections.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at length we find that by reference to the Rules the learned counsel wants to make out the grounds and circum--stances, which could justify fresh elections.
This submission of the learned counsel omits to take into consideration that the elections were held subject to the final orders of the Election Authority and were fully within the regula--tory powers of Election Authority. The controversy or the dispute essentially related to the acceptance of the nomination and at that stage there was n impediment under the law on the powers of the Election Authority to direct that nomination papers should be invited afresh. The powers of the Election Authority being relate able to that stage and to the cause of action arising to the petitioner, the mere regulatory order of directing the election to proceed with an ineligible candidate in the field did not have the effect of, in any manner, whittling down of that power of Election Authority. Such a power was derived from the stage at which the proceedings were brought before the Election Authority and notwithstanding that the Authority allowed the elections to take place subject to his final order, the ambit and scope of his power remained unaffected. Besides, on no principle of public policy in the absence of a statutory provision on the subject can the Election Authority be denied a power exercised manifestly for the purpose of ensuring fairness in the election and for sustaining the representative character of the Institution. The fact that the petitioner had received a minority of votes was before the authority and Court dealing with the matter and had been duly taken into consideration.
5. We find no legal error or defect in the jurisdiction exercised and the orders passed by the High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.