Through this single order, we will decide the instant Intra Court Appeal (No. 1331 of 2015) as well as the connected Intra Court Appeals whose numbers and titles along with brief facts are given below:-
1. I.C.A. No.1331 of 2015 Muhammad Abid Iqbal v. District Election Commissioner, etc.
2. I.C.A. No.1311 of 2015 Din Muhammad v. District Election Commissioner Kasur.
3. I.C.A. No.1338 of 2015 Khalid Bashir v. District Election Commissioner, Kasur
4. I.C.A. No.1321 of 2015 Khushi Muhammad v. Returning Officer, etc.
5. I.C.A. No.1384 of 2015 Muhammad Latif v. Returning Officer etc. The appellants filed their nomination papers for the, seats of General Councillors, which were rejected by Returning Officer vide impugned order dated 17.09.2015 on the ground that the appellant, proposer and secondar are not enrolled in the ward. The appellants preferred appeals before the learned Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.09.2015. Thereafter, the appellants filed writ petitions before this Court, which met with the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 2.10.2015 and 07.10.2015. Hence Intra Court Appeals.
6.I.C.A. No.1313 of 2015 Minhaj-ud-Din Ahmad v. Addl. District Judge/Appellate Authority, etc. The appellant jointly filed nomination papers along with another person for the seats of Chairman and Vice Chairman, which were rejected by Returning Officer vide order dated 10.09.2015 on the ground that another person has withdrawn his nomination papers. The appellant preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2015.
Thereafter, the appellant filed writ petition before this Court, which met with the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 02.10.2015. Hence this Intra Court Appeal.
7. I.C.A. No.1364 of 2015 Khurram Shahzad v. District Returning Officer Kasur, etc.
8. I.C.A. No.1345 of 2015.Shahid Javed v. District Returning Officer, Faisalabad.
9. I.C.A. No.1357 of 2015 Ansar Ali v. Returning Officer, Lahore etc. The appellants namely Khurram Shahzad, Shahid Javed and Ansar Ali filed nomination papers for the seats of General Councillors, which were rejected by Returning Officers vide orders dated 14.09.2015, 11.09.2015 and 17.09-2015 respectively on the ground that the proposer is not registered voter of the ward. The appellant preferred appeals before the learned Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed vide orders dated 28.09.2015, 23.09.2015 and 29.09.2015 respectively.
Thereafter, the appellants filed writ petitions before this Court, which met with the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 02.10.2015 and 05.10.2015. Hence intra Court Appeals.
10. I.C.A. No.1365 of 2015Irshad Ali v. Appellate Authority etc. The appellant filed nomination papers for the seat of General Councillor, which were rejected by Returning Officer vide order dated 11.09.2015 on the ground that the proposer and secondar do not enlist in the same ward. The appellant preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2015. Thereafter, the appellant filed writ petition before this Court, which met with the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 07.10.2015. Hence Intra Court Appeal.
11.I.C.A. No.1368 of 2015Zeeshan Abbas v. Appellate Authority etc. The appellant is candidate for the seat of General Councillor. Respondent No.3/writ petitioner did not file his nomination papers due to seat adjustment with the appellant and his other family members. After expiry of last date for submission of nomination papers, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority with wrongful submission that despite deposit of candidature fee by him, the Returning Officer refused to receive his nomination papers, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2015. Thereafter, he moved writ petition before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2015. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 through this intra Court Appeal.
12.I.C.A. No.1336 of 2015 Muhammad Hameed Ullah v. Addl. District Judge, etc. 13.I.C.A. No.1309 of 2015 Syed Imran Hassan Kazmi v. Returning Officer, etc. The appellants namely Muhammad Hameed Ullah and Syed Imran Hassan Kazmi filed nomination papers for the seat of General Councillor, which were rejected by Returning Officer vide order dated 17.09.2015 on the ground that the candidate is not registered voter of the ward. The appellant preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2015 and 28.09.2015. Thereafter, the appellants filed writ petitions before this Court, which met with the same fate vide impugned orders dated 09.10.2015 and 01.10.2015. Hence lntra Court Appeal.
14.I.C.A. No.1310 of 2015 Syed Imran Hassan Kazmi v.Returning Officer,etc. The appellant filed nomination papers for the seat of General Councillor, which were rejected by the learned Returning Officer vide order dated 17.09.2015 on the ground that the candidate is not registered voter of the ward whereas the nomination papers of respondent No.2 namely Ammad- ul-Hassan who is contesting candidate for the same ward has been accepted by the Returning Officer. Thereafter, without availing the remedy of appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, he directly filed writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2015. Hence the Intra Court Appeal.
15.I.C.A. No.1391 of 2015 Qammar Abbasv.Returning officer, etc. The appellant filed, nomination papers for the seat of General Councillor, which were accepted by Returning Officer vide order dated 09.10.2015. Respondent No.3 preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, which was not entertained by the Appellate Authority. The respondent No.3.
Filed writ petition before this Court, which was accepted and nomination papers of the appellant were rejected vide impugned judgment dated 19.10.2015. Hence this Intra Court Appeal.
2. At the very outset, a question was put to the learned counsel for the appellants that how these Intra Court Appeals are competent in view of proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. They contended that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers are illegal and unlawful. However, they failed to advance any reasonable and plausible arguments to address the question as to how these Intra Court Appeals are competent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at great length and examined the record.
4. Admittedly in these appeals either nomination papers were accepted or rejected and against acceptance or rejection of nomination papers an appeal is provided under Sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, which reads as follows:- An appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or accepting the nomination papers of the candidate may be preferred by any person present at the time of scrutiny under Sub-rule (I) to the concerned District and Sessions Judge or any other Judicial Officer nominated for the purpose by the Election Commission."
The proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, is reproduced as under:-- "Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable, provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court.
Tribunal or authority against the original order."
If we read the provision of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 in juxtaposition with proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, it leaves no ambiguity that where one appeal or one revision or one review is provided against the original order then Intra Court Appeal is not competent. Admittedly the original orders have been passed by the Returning Officers either rejecting or accepting the nomination papers against which an appeal is provided under Sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013. Therefore, these Intra Court Appeals are not competent as law applicable has provided one appeal against such orders under proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Reference may be made to case titled Mst. Karim Baksh and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another (PLD 1984 SC 344). Reference may also be made to unreported order dated 12.10.2015 passed in I.C.A. No. No.1305 of 2015 in case titled Ahmad Raza and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, etc. In I.C.A. No. 1309 of 2015 right of appeal was not availed by the appellant before the Appellate Authority under Sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections)
Rules, 2013. However, the non-filing of appeal does not make the Intra Court Appeal competent as right of appeal under the above-mentioned rule was available to him.
4. Sequel to the above, these Intra Court Appeals have no force, hence dismissed with no order as to cost.