1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 3-11-1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 7626 of 1980. The relevant facts are that the appellant contested election from Ward No. 2, Municipal Committee, Bhalwal, District Sargodha on 25-11-1972 and having secured the highest number of votes was elected as a Councillor. On 12-1-1986. Ch. Niaz Muhammad, respondent No. 3, submitted a petition under-section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (herein--after called the Ordinance) before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division,' Sargodha, questioning the election of the appellant on the ground that he was a Contractor of Bhalwal, Municipal Committee for the year 1979-80 and, therefore, stood. Disqualified under section 21(h) of the Ordinance. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division, by his order dated 20-5-1980 agreed with this contention and accepted the petition of respondent No' 3 and set aside the election of the appellant as a Councillor of Bhalwal Municipality. It appears that Muhammad Ishaq, respondent No. 4, bad also submitted a petition on the same lines as that filed by Ch. Niaz Muhammad (respondent No. 3) which also stood. Disposed of by the aforesaid order of the Com--missioner. Dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner the appellant preferred an appeal against the said order to the Secretary, Local Government Punjab, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 6th July, 1980. The appellant, therefore, moved the Lahore High Court by a Writ Peti--tion (W. P. No. 7626 of 1980) to impugn the order of the Commissioner and that of the Secretary Local Government contending, inter alia, that he was not a Contractor but the High Court repelled the plea and held that the appellant was indeed a Contractor and dismissed the Writ Petition by its order dated 3-11-1980. The appellant then moved this Court and leave was granted to consider the contention whether the above-noted disqualification of the appellant stood removed retrospectively by the amendments made in the Ordinance of 1979 by the amending Ordinance IV of 1981. This appeal, it was further directed, was to be heard along with the other appeals involving same ques--tion. In the event, however, this appeal was separated from the other appeals because it transpired that the appellants in the said cases had been disqualified on the ground that they stood disqualified under clause (f) of section 21 of the Ordinance, whereas in the present case the appellant was disqualified under clause (h) of section 21 thereof. For a proper appreciation of the question it will be appropriate to refer to the law as it originally stood and then to the changes effected therein by the amendments made by Ordinance IV .Of 1981. The Ordinance of 1979 was couched, to the extent relevant, in the following terms :- "Disqualifications of candidates and members.-A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council (a)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. (b)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. (c)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-..
(e) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-... ( f) if he for the time being is disqualified for membership of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force ; (g)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) 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." The law referred to in clause (f) above being the "House of Parlia--ment and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Orders, 1977 (Presidential Order 5 of 1977). ' The amending Ordinance IV of 1981 amended section 21 of the Ordinance of 1979 as follows :- In the Principal Ordinance, in section 21- The existing section was re-numbered as subsection (1) ; and in clause (f) of subsection (1), as renumbered, the semi-colon at the end was replaced by a colon, and thereafter the following proviso was added :- "Provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable to-
(1) a person who has, whether by himself or by any person in trust for him or for his benefit or on his
account any share or interest in-
(a) a contract for the supply of goods to, or the execution oh any work of, the Federal Government
or a Provincial Government or an Auto--nomous Body in which such a Government has a controlling share or interest or a local authority other than the one in which that person is a candidate for election (b)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------. (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
(c) clause (h) of subsection (1), as re-numbered, shall be omitted. "
In the. Category of cases wherein members had been disqualified on the ground that they were hit by the provisions of clause (f) of section 21 of the Ordinance and the effect of the amendment carried out by Ordinance IV of 19'81 was considered this Court has found in Muhammad Shafiq v. Returning Officer and another C. A. No. 330 of 1980 that the dis--qualification mentioned in proviso to clause (f) of section 21 stands removed retrospectively and shall be deemed never to have existed. As a result of this finding all persons who were elected as members (including the appellants in the said case-who was a depot-holder and was removed from membership because of the disqualification mentioned in the proviso of subsection (1) of section 21 (,') read with Article 10 (2)(b)($) of the Presidential Order No. 4 of 1977 were deemed always to have been members and stood restored to their seats notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in the Ordinance. Relying on this decision Sh. Shuakat Ali, learned counsel for the appel--lant in this case, contended that as the disqualification of the appellant stood removed by the omission of clause (h) of section 21 of the Ordinance he was also entitled to be restored to his membership as Councillor of the Municipal Committee, Bhalwal. No one appeared for the respondent when the case was heard. The judgment, however, was reserved after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Shaukat Ali. Shortly thereafter, a written application was submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4 explaining the reasons for his absence and praying that he may be permitted to place on record his written argu--ments for consideration, since the judgment of the Court has not yet been announced. The plea taken in the written arguments submitted by respondent No. 4 is that even under the amendment made by Ordinance IV of 1981 the appel--lant continues to remain disqualified. In this connection, it is submitted that although clause (h) of section 21 has been omitted. But at the same time in the proviso added by Ordinance IV of 1981 to clause (f) of section 21 the dis--qualification in the relevant regard has not been retained. In this connection, attention is invited to the proviso, specially the words underlined* below : - "(1) (a) provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable to (1) . (a) A contract for the supply of goods to or the execution of any work of Federal Government or a Provin--cial Government or an Autonomous Body in which such a Government has a controlling share or interest or a local authority other than the one in which that person is a candidate for election." It is submitted that since the appellant was a Contractor of the Municipal Committee, Bhalwal, he, therefore, stood disqualified even under the amended law by virtue of the words contained in the latter part of the proviso, which have been underlined*. This plea appears to be correct. The Commissioner Sargodha Division, Sargodha found that the appellant held a contract of the slaughter house with the Bhalwal Municipal Committee and this finding was upheld by the Secretary, Local Government and not interfered with by the High Court. Now, although clause (h) of section 21 of the Ordinance stands omitted by Ordinance IV of 1981 the disqualification created by the said clause (h) has, as we have seen above, not disappeared altogether because the said disqualification even while omitting clause (h) has been retained in the newly added proviso to clause (f) of section 21. The result is that even under the amended law a person holding a contract with the same Local Council for whose membership he was a candidate would continue to be disqualified despite the deletion of clause (h) of section 21 of the Ordinance. The result is that this appeal must fail and is dismissed hereby. The parties, however, will be left to bear their own costs.