KHURSHID AHMAD, J.-The petitioner and the respondent are the elected members of the District Council, Rawalpindi and both were the candidates for the election of Chairmanship held on 2nd December, 1979. The respondent was declared successful and was duly notified as Chair--man.
The respondent is admittedly a member and office bearer of Pakistan Muslim League (Pagara Group). The respondent filed his nomi--nation papers for the seat to the election of National Assembly from N. A. 39 on 2nd October, 1979 as a candidate of the Pakistan Muslim League. The election of the respondent, as a member of the District Council, has been challenged on the ground that he being a member and office bearer of Pakistan Muslim League (Pagara Group)
District Rawalpindi which was not a registered political party and as such was not competent to partici--pate and contest election as a candidate for the District Council. It is further submitted that as the respondent was disqualified to be elected as a member of District Council. Therefore, he is also illegally holding the office of the Chairman, District Council, Rawalpindi Reliance has been placed on a D. B. Judgment of this Court Malik Ghulam Abbas v. Malik Mumtaz Khan (P E. D 1.980 Lah. 718).
2. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that he did not suffer any disqualification of the type asserted by the petitioner. He was eligible to participate and contest the election of National Assembly as Pakistan Muslim League (Pagara Group) duly submitted its accounts before the Election Commission of Pakistan within the stipulated period and was notified to participate and contest the election under Notification No. F. 1. (3)/76-Cord dated 9th October, 1979 (Annex-`R-2').
The point which requires for consideration in this petition is whether there was any dis-- qualification attached. To the respondent on account of his association with the said political party and whether the same still persists justifying issuance of writ of quo warranto against the respondent.
3. The decision in this case dependents upon the interpretation of section 21 (f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979. Section 21 provides disqualification of being a candidate of a member of the local council. Clause (f) deals with the following disqualification :- "If he for the time being is disqualified for membership of the Parah--ment or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being force."
Section 21 (f) has the effect to bring the candidate from the Local Council on the same footing as a candidate for membership of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies by subjecting them to the same disqualification in addi--tion to these and enumerated under other clauses of 5.
21. The provision of section 10 (2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections)
President's Order V of 1977 shall have to be referred for the disqualification for membership of the Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. Some of these disqualifications were already in force on the day when the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 came into force on 31st July, 1979. But certain disqualifications were added after the date fixed for filing of the nomination papers and even after the elec--tion for membership of Local Councils. Clause 7 (a) was added after clause
(7) of section 10, of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order of 1979 by virtue of an amendment made on 19th September, 1979 being the House of Parliament and Provincial Assem--blies (Elections) (Second Amendment) Order, 1979. For the sake of con-- venience clause 7 (a) is reproduced below :- "7 (a) if he is a member of a political party which has not been registered, or the registration of which has been cancelled, under the Political Parties Act, 1962 (111 of 1962)." .
Clause (b) was also added but it is not, material for the purpose of this judgment.
4. By President's Older No. 18 of 1979, known as Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) (Third Amendment) Order, 1979, which was enforced with effect from 27th September, 1979, a further clause (7-c) was added after clause (7-b) which is as follows :- "(7-c) if he has, during the period of two months preceding the publi--cation of the notification under section 11, of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1976 (LXXXV of 1976) been a member or supporter of, or associated with a political party, unless he is put by that political party as a candidate."
Thus by sub-clause (7-a) it was provided that a person who is a member of a political party which has either not been registered or registration of which has been cancelled under the Political Parties Act would be disqua--lified from being elected as .a member of the Provincial and National Assemblies of Pakistan. By clause (7-c), any person who,- during the period of two months preceding the publication of notice under section 11, of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 has been a member or sup--porter of or associated with a political party unless he is put up that politi--cal party as a candidate, was also disqualified.
5. Clause (7-a) was further amended on 8th October, 1979, by President's Order No. XX of 1979, known as Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1979 and was substituted by the following sub-clause :- "(7-a) if he is a member of a Political Party which is not eligible under Political Parties Act, 1962 (111 of 1962) to participate in an Election to a seat in a House of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly or to nominate or put up a candidate at any such Election."
Sum total of the above amendments would show that a member of a Political party which was not eligible under the Political Parties Act, 1962 to participate in an election to a seat in a House of Parliament or a Pro--vincial Assembly was disqualified from being nominated or put up as a candidate at any such election.
6. In order to appreciate the arguments of the parties reference shall have to be made to section 3 (c), of the Political Parties Act, 1962. Sec--tion 3 (c), was added to the said Act by section 2, of the Political Parties (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, after section 3. (b). Section 3 (c) so added is reproduced below :-.
(I)
(2)
(3)
(4) It- after giving apolitical party which has furnished answers to the questionnaire as required by subsection (2) an opportunity of being heard, the Election Commission is satisfied that the party has -ful--filled the requirements of subsection (3-B,) the Election Commission shall declare the political party, by notification in the official Gazette to be eligible to participate in an election to a seat in a House of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly and to nominate or put up a candidate at any such election."
It would be, therefore, seen that section 3 (c), had created a new condition of eligibility and the Election Commission was authorised to call upon the political parties to furnish answers to the questionnaire and if the Election Commission was satisfied that the party had fulfilled requirements of sub--section (3), of section 3 (b), the Election Commission could declare a political party eligible to participate in an election to a seat in a House of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly and to nominate or put up a candidate at any such election.
7. The case of the respondent is that the Pakistan Muslim League (Pagara Group) duly submitted its accounts before the Election Commission of Pakistan within the stipulated period and was notified to participate and contest the elections under section 3 (c), of the Political Parties Act though not- registered earlier. The Pakistan Muslim League (Pagara Group) submitted its accounts on 18th September, 1979 before the Election Com--mission of Pakistan. The respondent filed his nomination papers for the A election of Local Council on 12th September, 1979. The election of the Local Councils was held on 27th September, 1979 and the result was declared on 29th September, 1979.
The temporary disqualification, if any, stood removed by the Pakistan Muslim League (Pagara Group) having replied to the questionaire as is evident from the cutting of Pakistan Times dated 27th September, 1979 (Annex. R/1') and the Notification of 6th October, 1979 (Annex. `R/2').
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Dr. Kamal Hussain v. Muhammad Sirajul Islam (PLD1969SC42) for the proposition that in case the disqualification is temporary and does not persist, the same cannot be made as a ground for the issuance of writ of quo warranto. In this case certain persons were elected as members of East Pakistan Bar Council. Their election was alleged on the ground that each of them had been detained in custody under provisions of East Bengal Safety Ordinance, 1951. It was found that this order was of a limited duration and provided for automatic repeal till 31st December, 1960. Inthis connection it was observed as under :-.
The disqualification under the order attached to certain persons, for election to elective bodies and when that disqualification itself was intended to disappear on a certain date, there in no point in the argument that the disqualification was to persist in respect of the bodies that may be established even after the cessation of the dis--qualification. Plainly enough, the Council that was established on the expiry of the life of the old Bar Council on 1st January, 1967 is' immune from the mischief of the Order. The appellants and the two respondents who suffered from a temporary disqualification under the Order were free from its taint and could validly have sought election to a body which was to come into existence after that date when their disability was over."
The relevant observations at Page 52 may also be quoted :-_ "The alleged disqualification of the appellants and the two respondents which formed the rain basis of the writ, was of an artificial and ephemeral character, which vanished on the date when those members took charge of their functions. They did not suffer from an inherent disqualification of any sort. In the circumstances I feel very strong--ly that it was not at all fit case for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto by the High Court."
9. Reference may also be made to Ghulam Mohammad v. Returning Officer etc. (1981 CLC 234). In this case a Depot-holder tendered his resignation which was accepted by the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, on 28th October, 1979: Earlier, on 28th September, 1979, he had contested the election of Member from Ward No. 4, Municipal Committee, Kamoke, and succeeded. A redpoll was held on 14th September, 1979 and the 'F appellant again succeeded. The result ,of the election was notified on 22nd November, 1979: A voter challenged the election in the High Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court found that the appellant was disqualified to be a member of the Municipal Committee. The judgment was set aside in an Intra Court Appeal. The relevant observations made e quoted below :- "The appellant was undoubtedly not qualified to contest the elec--tion on the relevant day as a depot-holder for the established posi--tion in law that far. This disqualification was, however, temporary as it would vanish after the appellant resigned on 28th October, 1979. The learned counsel sought support from a judgment of the High Court when a writ petition on. a voter was rejected for the reason that the respondent-member bad resigned on 17th February, 1950, before the filing of the writ petition of 13th March; 1980."
Reliance may also be made to another judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Afzal v. Jan Abdul Hamid (NLR 1980 Civil Lah. 844), in the same volume.
10. In view of the above discussion this writ petition has no force which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.