GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This petitioner who was a member and Chairman of Union Council Lagar, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, was removed vide order dated 14th March, 1981, from the said offices in a writ it, the nature of quo warranto No. 7465-80.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that as his removal has not been notified so far and as meanwhile Ordinance IV of 1981, enforced, remov--ing the previous disqualification of being depot- holder, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated to his office. The subsection (2) added to section 21 reads as under:- "Any person who, immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 was suffering from a disqualification which has been removed by virtue of the proviso to clause (f) of subsection (1), or who has been- removed from such membership by any authority or tribunal constituted under any provision of the Ordinance or by any decree, judgment or order of any Court on the grounds of the said disqualification shall, notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, be eligible to be a candidate or a member of a Local Council."
3. The learned counsel pleads that the effect of the newly-added proviso to section 21 (1) (f )read with the above subsection is not only to remove the disqualification but to do so retrospectively, as if it was never there and any order passed removing the petitioner shall be non-existent.
4. The above contention, however, is not correct. The effect of the above provision rather is that the person who was suffering from such disqua--lification or had been removed from membership because of that disqualifica--tion shall be eligible to be a candidate or a member. As is clear, the provi--sion does not say that he shall be deemed to be a candidate or a member as if no such disqualification or removal existed. Secondly, it makes him only eligible to be a candidate or a member.
5. The word `eligible' is not defined anywhere in the Ordinance. According to the dictionary it means fit or worthy to be chosen or `legally qualified for election or appointment. Thus the amendment has merely removed the disqualification making him fit for election, Consequently, the petitioner cannot say that he shall be deemed to be a member.
6. We asked the learned counsel as to what would have been the effect of above, if fresh election had taken place; after the removal of the petitioner and some other person had already occupied the seat vacated by his client. To this he candidly agreed that the petitioner would have not been able to claim the seat back in that situation. If that be the admitted position then how can it be claimed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing as a member after the amendment?
7. A perusal of the above provision leaves no manner of doubt that it merely removed the disqualification and made a person, who has already been removed from membership, fit to contest election.