' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---The petitioner complains that the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14062 of 2013 was not complied with in letter and spirit, obliging him to file the instant petition so as to proceed against respondent No. 2, Zahid Saleem Gondal, District Coordination Officer (Delimitation Officer), Multan under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
2. The operative part of the order dated 4-12-2013 is reproduced advantageously:-- 'Therefore, the impugned order of delimitation by the respondent-Authorities is revised and the area of Sharif Pur and Kot Mehra are ordered to be included in U. C. No.82 by detaching the same from U. C. No.122 and the same will be within the area of U. C. No.82 Basti Nau whereas villages of Non Adwana and Chak Mahni will remain part of Union Council No.83 Nawab Pur. This new arrangement will not cause any marked difference in the population for both the areas .
' Respondent No.2 maintains that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order dated 4-12- 2013 and the same was brought to his notice for the first time on 9-12-2013. His stance is that at the time, section 10-A was inserted in the Local Government Act, 2013. It would be expedient to reproduce the same hereunder:-- '10-A. Finality of delimitation--A court, officer or authority shall not review or correct any delimitation of a Union Council or ward after the notification of the, election schedule.'
4. Against this backdrop, respondent No.2 argued that he was hamstrung. On the one hand, he was to carry out the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by this Court, and on the other, he was bound to follow the law as amended through Notification No. F.4(1)/2012-LEG (P) dated 9th December 2013. In other words, he was in a quandary and left high and dry.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this petition, provided the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by this Court is complied with in letter and spirit.
6. Learned Additional. AdvockeGeneral contends that had the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by this Court been implemented, it would have serious repercussions affecting the delimitation relating to four union councils. He further argues that the process of filing of nomination papers is almost over, and it would not be appropriate to turn the clock back. At the fag-end of his arguments, he has invited the attention of the court to the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by my learned brother .Ibadur-Rehman Lodi J. In Writ Petition No. 13703 of 2013 in which it was observed by him:- `After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that the Commissioner/Delimitation Authority, after issuance of Notification dated 4th November, 2013, became functus officio with regard to delimitation process and when a power to review has not specifically been assigned by the relevant Statute, he was not competent to review its earlier decision.'
7. Learned Additional Advocate-General also made reference to an order dated 16-12-2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Intra-Court Appeal No.344 of 2013. His argument implies as if the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber was set aside or reversed in Intra-Court Appeal No.344 of 2013. I regret my inability to subscribe to the contention made by the learned Additional Advocate-General. I am of the view that the learned Division Bench of this. Court did not interfere in the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber. As things stand, the learned Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of IntraCourt Appeal No. 344 of 2013, had simply reproduced section 10-A of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. As such the Division Bench did not feel called upon to make any further comments on the order dated 4-12-2013. With utmost respect to the learned Additional Advocate General, his contention noted above is misconceived.
8. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to deal with the objection made by the learned Additional Advocate-General to the effect that it is well-nigh impossible, at this stage, to implement the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by this Court, His reliance on the order dated 4-12- 2013 passed by my learned brother IbadurRehman Lodhi, J. In Writ Petition No.13703 of 2013 is inapt and misplaced, to say the least. When a lawful order had been passed in Writ Petition No.14062 of 2013 and that, too, by the very same learned Judge, Mr. Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J. Respondents cannot be allowed to take refuge in the order passed by him in. Writ Petition No.13703 of 2013.
Otherwise, it would be assumed that the Hon'ble Judge of this Court was not aware of his own order passed in the other writ petition.
' There is no warrant to proceed on such assumptions.
9. As regards the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that finality is attached to the delimitation process in the wake of insertion of section 10-A of the Local Governments Act, 2013, suffice it to say that it prohibited a court, officer or authority not to review or correct any delimitation of a union council after the notification of the election schedule. But in so far this court is concerned, its right of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be abridged or *curtailed through a sub-Constitutional measure. And if an order is questioned before it on the ground that it has been passed either without lawful authority or in excess of jurisdiction or the concerned authority declined to exercise its jurisdiction or the order was passed in violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 or the same is mala fide, the same shall be struck down, in spite of the insertion of section 10-A in the Local Government Act, 2013.
10. I am of the considered view that when a lawful order is passed by this Court, all authorities, how highsoever, are bound to respect it and to implement it in letter and spirit. The orders passed by this Court cannot be allowed to be trifled with and put on the back burner on one pretext or another.
11. Since the petitioner does not want to proceed against respondents, it would not be appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against them. However, they are bound to give effect to the order dated 4-12-2013 passed by this. Court in letter and spirit, irrespective of its fallout or IA consequences. Disposed of.