' GUL MOHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This petition praying by a writ in the nature of quo warranto solicits that the respondent No 1 may be asked to produce the warrant under which he is holding a public office.
2, Briefly, the facts of this case are that . Respondent No. 1 who had been working as a depot-holder since 25th November, 1968, filed his nomination papers on 12th November, 1979. He was duly elected a member of the Zila Council on 25th November, 1979 and is performing his functions as such.
3. The learned counsel now refers to a certificate dated 23rd January, 1980, issued by the Assistant Food Controller, Kamoke, saying that the respondent is a depot-holder and argues that as he was disqualified under section 21 (f) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979, read with President (Post Proclamation) Order V, he stands disqualified to hold the said office.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on Annex. R. 1/1 by which the Cooperative Society had stated that the respondent shall resign as a depot-holder. He complied with the decision as it is shown in R. 1/2. This resignation was recommended by the Assistant Food Controller on the same date. The District Food Controller, however, directed vide his order dated 28th February, 1980, that the respondent may be asked to appear personally on 4th March, 1980.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the above facts that as the respondent had communicated his intention not to carry on the depot and as there is no proof on the record that he had drawn any foodstuffs thereafter, or carried on the said agency, he was not disqualified on the date when he submitted his nomination papers or entered on his office as a member of the Local Council. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in Ghulam Muhammad v.
Returning Officer (1) wherein this Court refused to grant a writ in the nature of quo warranto where the respondent had already shed off his disability or disqualification.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had mainly relied on another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Malik Ghulam {{FOOT NOTE}} (1)1981 CLC 234 {{FOOT NOTE}} Abbas v. Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Khan and 2 others (1) to say that the disqualification continued and, therefore, a writ was to be issued. That case, however, does not apply to the facts in hand. The case of the respondent as stated above is that he had resigned much earlier than the date of nomination or election and so was not disqualified.
7. The facts as given above would go to show that the respondent had already expresed his intention not to carry on the agency. It was not a job of a nature in which his resignation was subject to any acceptance. The relationship between the Food Department and the respondent were that of a principal and an agent and the moment the respondent expressed his intention not to carry on the agency he stood relieved of the agency. It is to be noted that there is no provision in the rules that a depot-holder cannot abandon the depot or that the same is subject to any acceptance by the Food Department. There is even no provision for notice. The respondent thus was not a depot-holder on the date of his nomination or becoming a member and so not disqualified.
' For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1980 Lab. 718 {{FOOT NOTE}}