IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2015 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby the'Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of Appellate Authority, Sahiwal, dated 10.10.2015 accepting the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 has been affirmed.
2. Facts briefly stated are that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely Muhammad Younas and Alamsher filed their nomination papers for Chairman and Vice Chairman from Union Council 53/GD, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, which were subscribed by Maher Muhammad Zaman as proposer, who had also submitted his nomination papers to the Returning Officer for Vice Chairman for the same constituency alongwith Bashir Ahmad. The nomination papers of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that Muhammad Zaman, their proposer, was also contesting election for Vice Chairman from the same Union Council. In appeal the Appellate Authority accepted the nomination papers of the respondents by observing that Muhammad Zaman and Bashir Ahmed had withdrawn their nomination papers on 1.10.2015 prior to the date extended by the Returning Officer for the scrutiny i,e, 2.10.2015. This order has been upheld by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that Muhammad Zaman had filed his nomination papers prior to the filing of nomination papers by the respondents No, 4 and 5, therefore, he could not be a proposer; that in terms of Rule 12(8) of the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 the nomination papers filed by the respondents were not valid; that the scheme of the election is that the proposer and seconder cannot propose any other candidate and cannot contest election for the same seat. In support of the contentions raised, learned counsel relied on Muhammad Jamil Akhtar v. Appellate Authority Rawalpindi, etc. (2003 SCM R 400). He also relied upon Miraj Muhammad Qureshi v. District & Sessions Judge Mirpur Khas (2006 M LD 57) to contend that the process of scrutiny was till 30.9.2015 and after that period Muhammad Zaman could not have withdrawn their nomination papers.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents No, 4 & 5, on the other hand, while relying on Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. ADJ Returning Officer Naushero Feroz (1994 SCM R 1299) has contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because it has been held by this Court that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can only be invoked 'where no legal remedy is available to an aggrieved party during the process of election or after its completion, against an order of an election functionary which is patently illegal/without jurisdiction and the effect of which is to defranchise a candidate." He added that in this case the petitioner has a remedy of filing Election Petition in case respondent Nos. 4 & 5 became successful candidates. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon Aftab Shaban Mirani v. President of Pakistan (1998 SCM R 1863). He has also relied upon PLD 1974 Karachi 222) to contend that the remedy available should be adequate and not immediate.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the respondents at some length and have gone through the impugned judgment.
6. The only ground which weighed with the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was that Muhammad Zaman, their proposer, was also contesting election for Vice Chairman from the same Union Council. However, we have noticed that on 30.9.2015 the Returning Officer had informed the respondents that as Muhammad Zaman himself was contesting election and could not propose any candidate, their nomination papers are liable to be rejected, upon which the respondents requested for adjournment, which was granted and the case was fixed on 2.10.2015. Meanwhile, on 1.10.2015 Muhammad Zaman and Bashir Ahmed also filed an application to withdraw the nomination papers as candidates. The Returning Officer could have passed the order on the same day but he adjourned the case, which means that the process of scrutiny was not over. So far as the issue that in terms of Rule 12(8) of the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, the nomination papers of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not valid as Muhammad Zaman had filed his nomination papers prior to them is concerned, the learned High Court has rightly dealt with this matter by observing that "from bare perusal of sub-rule (8) of Rule 12 of the Rules ibid, it is evident that the same places an embargo upon a voter not to subscribe as a proposer or seconder more than one nomination papers for the same category of seats and if a voter subscribe as a proposer or seconder to more than one nomination papers in the same category of seat, all such nomination papers, except the one received first by the Returning Officer, shall be void. There is no specific prohibition or embargo exists that a candidate cannot propose or second the name of any other candidate for same constituency, Maher Muhammad Zaman only subscribed the nomination papers of respondents No, 4 and 5 being proposer and since he did not subscribe nomination papers of any other candidate for the same category of seat as a proposer or seconder, so sub-rule (8) of Rule 12 of the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 is hardly attracted in the present case." Besides, we have found force in the contention of respondents' learned counsel that the writ petition was not maintainable because it has been held by this Court in Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v.
ADJ/Returning Officer Naushero Feroz (1994 SCM R 1299) that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can only be invoked "where no legal remedy is available to an aggrieved party during the process of election or after its completion, against an order of an election functionary which is patently illegal/without jurisdiction and the effect of which is to defranchise a candidate."
7. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed and leave is refused.