' The respondent was elected as a Member of Municipal Committee, Pattoki, District Kasur, at the election which was held on 25-9-1979. The petitioner who is a voter within the area of the Municipality has challenged the respondent's membership on the ground that the respondent has a subsisting contract with the Municipal Committee. In support of his submission he has placed on record a document which shows that the respondent had purchased from the Municipal Committee the right to collect fees from the Tonga owners at the Tonga Stand on the Adda Tam Tam. This right was auctioned to the respondent for the year 1979-80, and according to the general terms and conditions of such auctions, a copy of which is appended as Annexure B to this writ petition, the contract expired on 30-6-1980.
2. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had a subsisting contract with the Municipal Committee at the time he contested the election, and that the contract still continues to exist, because the respondent has still not cleared all his liabilities to the Municipal Committee under the contract and a substantial sum of money still remains to be paid.
3. The contract having come to an end on 30-6-1980, according to the petitioner's own documents there is no warrant for the view that it still continues to subsist. Even if the respondent has any amount to pay to the Municipal Committee on account of the aforesaid contract or otherwise, his case cannot be regarded as covered by the provisions of subsection (h) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, according to j which a person is disqualified to be a candidate or a member, "If he is under contract for work to be done or goods to be supplied to the Local Council concerned or has otherwise any pecuniary interest in its affairs." Liability to pay money to the Municipal Committee cannot be regarded as being a pecuniary interest in the affairs of the Municipal Committee. The respondent is, therefore, not disqualified to be a member now.
4. It is next submitted that the alleged contract was at least subsisting when the election took place and the petitioner's election was, therefore, without lawful authority. This contention however is of no avail to the petitioner, because writ in the nature of quo warranto can only be filed if a person is disqualified to hold a public office. The disqualification is alleged on the sole ground that the can- didature of the respondent being invalid, he could not be regarded as having been validly elected.
However, under the law it is only the Election Tribunal which can give a finding that election of a returned candidate was invalid. A reference may be made in this behalf to section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, which is as follows :- "24. Election petitions.-(1) No election shall be called in question except by election petition.
(2) A candidate may make an election petition before the Election Tribunal challenging the election at which he was a candidate.
(3) The decision of the Tribunal on an election petition shall be final."
' The petitioner could not file any election petition because he was not an opposing candidate. The election of the respondents is neither challengeable by the petitioner, nor by a mode other than that of filing an election petition. A reference in this behalf may be made to Hamida Begum and others v. Provincial Election Authority and others (I).
5. This petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1966 Lab. 560 {{FOOT NOTE}}