' MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- Through this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Verbal Declaration dated 11-4-2012 made by respondent No,2 declaring respondent No,9 as Chairman of Area Water Board, Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) be declared illegal, void and without any lawful authority.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Writ Petition are that under Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority Act, 1997 (the Act), the Pilot Area Water Boards have been established in LCC(E)
Circle, Faisalabad, CRBC area of D.G. Khan comprising farmers of the distributaries duly elected by the farmers of the area. The process of establishing Area Water Board Sahiwal Circle was initiated by the respondents and 12 farmers namely respondents Nos.4 to 14 were elected as Members Area Board, LBDC Circle, Sahiwal. The petitioner Rana Sikandar Hayat is the elected member of the Area Water Board Unit One Balloki. Respondent No,2 under Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005 called a meeting for 11-4-2012 vide 'letter dated 28-3-2012 to elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Area Water Board, LBDC (the Board). The petitioner along with 5 other Members of the Area Water Board, LBDC namely respondents No,4 to 8 reached the PIDA Building, Sahiwal at 11 a.m. And orally announced his candidacy for the Chairmanship of the Area Water Board, LBDC. Respondent No,9 namely Rai Habib Ullah also declared his candidacy for the chairmanship. Both the candidates got equal 5 votes each but respondent No,2, without any lawful reason, declared respondent No,9 as the successful candidate verbally, the same day, i,e, 11- 4-2012 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that respondent No,2 has acted illegally and unlawfully and has, under political influence, declared respondent No,9 as the successful candidate of the Board. He averred that six Members of the Board were on petitioner side, therefore, respondent No,9 could not be declared as the successful candidate for the chairmanship. He pointed out that in the event of absence of consensus, written nominations under Rule 6 of the Election Manual were required but neither written nominations were sought nor submitted by the candidates. He maintained that Rule 2 of the Election Manual was also ignored altogether as no written consent of the Members was obtained by respondent No,2. Learned counsel prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned declaration dated 11-4-2012 be declared null and void.
' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this writ petition. He stated that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner even tendered his candidacy for the chairmanship of the Board. He further states that nomination papers for the election were duly sought and submitted only by respondents Nos.9 and 13 for chairmanship and vice-chairmanship respectively. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the fateful day, eight members were present but the petitioner and respondent No,4 left the room where the election was to be conducted. That after about half an hour of their leaving the room, announcements for conducting election were made but the said two persons did not enter in the election room. That the election was conducted and respondents Nos.9 and 13, were declared Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively. Learned counsel for the respondents avers that no illegality was committed in the election process, and this Writ Petition having no force is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments put forth by both sides have been heard and record made available before me also reviewed.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance to letter dated 28-3-2012 issued by respondent No,2 went into a meeting held on 11-4-2012 to elect Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Area Water Board, LBDC. He as well as respondent No,9 being elected members presented themselves as candidates for the chairmanship of the Board. According to the petitioner, the votes were cast wherein both the candidates for the chairmanship got equal 5 votes each but respondent No,2 under the influence of respondent No,8 who is an MPA of the area declared respondent No,2 as the Chairman unlawfully and illegally. However, the whole story narrated by the petitioner has been denied altogether by the respondents saying that there were only eight elected members present in the meeting out of which the petitioner and respondent No,4 left the 'room where the election was to be conducted and did not come back. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted before the Court that the election was conducted fairly and justly in the presence of the members. In the circumstances, since the plea taken by the petitioner is denied altogether, therefore, disputed questions of fact have arisen which need recording of evidence for their resolution. It is settled law that where disputed questions of fact arise, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
7. Even otherwise, under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005, a remedy has been provided for settlement of dispute if any arises during the election process. Section 16 of the said Rules is reproduced as under:- "16. Elections.- (1) Elections under these rules shall be held and the lists of the eligible voters shall be prepared and revised in accordance with the regulations.
(2) All election disputes and disputes relating to the voter lists shall be decided by the Authority, a duly authorized officer of the Authority or by a dispute resolution committee constituted by the Authority on the application of an aggrieved person."
' Bare reading of subsection (2) above shows that in the event of any dispute arising out of the election process, the matter will be referred to the Authority, a duly Authorized Officer of the Authority or by a dispute resolution committee constituted by the Authority on the application of an aggrieved person for its resolution. No such remedy has been availed by the petitioner rather this Writ Petition has been preferred. Since remedy for redressal of a dispute has been provided in the Act, section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is fully attracted in the case which provides that where remedy of appeal, review, revision or so has been provided, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. As such, this writ petition is not maintainable.
8. For the aforementioned seasons, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law.