NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 12-4-1980 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in I. C. A. No. 30 of 1980.
2. The relevant facts are that for the elections to the special interest seat of "peasants" of Zilla Council of District Sargodha, respondent No. I (Malik Muhammad Aslam), inter alia, filed his nomination papers. Another person, namely, Iftikhar Ahmad Kahloon also filed his nomination papers. Both of them were accepted by the Returning officer on 4-12-1977. The elections to the special interest seats were scheduled to, be held on 12-12-1979.
3. On the said date (1.2-12-1979), an information was laid before the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority (appellant herein) by Anwar Ali (Respondent No. 2 herein) to the effect that neither Respondent No. 1 nor Iftikhar Ahmad Kahloon were _"peasants" but were trying to get elected to the District Council on a seat reserved for "Peasants" and, thus, defeat the object of the law. On receipt of the said infor6ation, the appellate authority stayed the conduct of elections vide its order dated 12-12-1979. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 also filed a regular petition under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 for review of the order of the Returning Officer dated 4- 12-1979 passed by the Returning Officer where by nomination papers of Respondent No. 1 and Iftikhar Ahmad Kahloon for the "Peasants" seat were accepted. It was prayed that their nomination papers be rejected.
4. The appellate authority heard all the parties concerned and allowed them an opportunity to present their point of view. It ultimately came to the conclusion that neither Respondent No. 1 nor Iftikhar Ahmad Kahloon were "peasants" within the meaning of clause (xxvii) of section 3 of the Ordinance. Consequently, in exercise of its powers under section 17 of the Ordinance the orders of the Returning Officer accepting the nomination papers of Respondent No. I and Iftikhar Ahmad Kahloon were set aside vide order dated 19-1-1980.
5. Iftikhar Ahmad Kahloon does not appear to have felt aggrieved by the above order and did not agitate against it. Respondent No. 1, however, was not satisfied and challenged the said order by filing a writ petition (W. P. No. 753/80) in the Lahore High Court. This was heard by a learned Single (Muhammad H4bibullab, J). And dismissed by hint in limine on the, ground that the finding of the election authority that Respondent No, 1 was not a "peasant" did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect vide order dated 26-1-1980.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, Respondent No. 1 filed an Intra Court Appeal (I. C. A. 30%80), which was heard by a Division Bench (consisting of Zakiuddin P.1 and Karar Hussain Zaidi, JJ).
7. Before the said learned Court it was, inter alia, contended that the appellant authority did not have jurisdiction to set aside the order of accept--ance of the nomination papers of Respondent No. 1. This objection found favour with the I. C. A. Bench which held that by the insertion of sub-- section (2) of section 17 in the Principal Ordinance by Punjab Ordinance XII of 1979 the powers conferred on the Election Authority under subsection (1) had been restricted and the Election Authority henceforth was debarred from dealing with and deciding such matters as could be the subject-matter of an election petition under Rule 13 of the Election Petition Rules. It was further observed that the powers of the Election, Authority to review an order passed by an officer under the Ordinance or rules was subject to the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 17 of the Ordinance with limited its powers. If the limitation as imposed by the aforesaid provisions on the powers of Election Authority had not been there, the situation might have been different but in the presence of the aforesaid subsection (2), the Election Authority cannot deal with any matter which can be dealt with by the Election Tribunals under Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules. As such, the provision as contained in section 24 of the Ordinance to the effect that no election shall be called in question except by election petition should be read in conjunction with section 17(1) and (2) of the Ordinance. On this view of the matter it was held that the order dated 19-1-1980 passed by the appellant Authority reviewing the order passed by the Returning Officer and rejecting the nomina-- tion papers of Respondent No. 1 was not competent and was accordingly set aside. It was further directed that Respondent No. 1 herein will be allowed to contest election for the "peasants" seat of the Zila Council and the question of his nomination papers being invalid on account of his being not a 'peasent' would be examined by the Election Tribunal in the election, if filed under the law. This order of the learned Division Bench, which was passed on 12-4-1980 is questioned in this appeal.
8. To appreciate the contentions raised before us the relevant provisions may be reproduced below:- "Section 17. Election Authority to ensure fair elections etc.-(1) Election Authority may issue such instructions and exercise such powers including the power to review an order passed by an officer under the Ordinance or the rules, and make such consequential order as' may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring that an election is con--ducted honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules."
By Ordinance XII of 1979, the following provision was, inter alia added :- "Subsection (2). Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be construed to mean that the Election Authority has power to enquire into any matter or pass any order in respect of anything relating to election which can be called in question before an Election Tribunal by an --election petition under this Ordinance--- As for the Election Petition Rules called "The Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979", sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 thereof is relevant and reads as follows "13. Ground for declaring election of returned candidate void -(1) The Tribunal- shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void if it is satisfied that ---
(a) the nomination of the returned candidate was invalid ; or
(b) the returned candidate was not, on the nomination day qualified for, or was disqualified from, being elected as a Member or Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be ; or
(c) the election of the returned candidate has been procured or induced by any corrupt or illegal practice ; or
(d) a corrupt or illegal practice has been committed by the returned candidate of his election agent or by any other person with the conni--vance of the candidate or his authorised agent."
9. The learned counsel for the Appellant Authority, Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramdey submitted that subsection (2) of section 17 of the Ordinance ousted the jurisdiction of the appellant only after an "election" has taken place i. e. When the result of the elections has been notified in the official Gazette, as required by Rule 41 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979. Till the result is notified the appellant continues to retain powers to see "that an election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and Rules" as required by section 17(1). The finding of the learned Judges of the Division Bench that as soon as the electoral process had started, the appellant ceases to have jurisdiction in the conduct of the elections and all illegalities and irregularities committed during the course of elections can only be challenged by way of an Election Petition under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with Rule 13 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 is erroneous as its interpretation on subsection (2) of section 17 has the effect of practically destroying the powers enjoyed by the appellant under subsec--tion (1) of section 17 for "conducting the elections honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules".
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the word "election" has been defined in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 but it has been so defined in Rule 2 (d) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. The learned Division Bench in refusing to give effect to the definition of the word "election" given in the above Rules has acted contrary to the accepted principles of interpretation of statutes. It is further submitted that even if the ordinary dictionary meaning is given to the word "election" as used in section 17 (2) of the Ordinance, the result would have been the same, in as much as in ordinary parlance, the word "election" means a "choice", a "selection" and "chosen". The intention of the law in enacting subsection (2) of section 17 of the Ordinance was clearly to leave the "post election" disputes for determination by the Election Tribunal and to keep the superisory powers of the appellant in the "pre-election" stage, intact. The interpretation placed by the learned Division Bench on subsection (2) of section 17 of the Ordinance is not only in derogation of subsection (.1) of section 17 of the Ordinance but also hampers the effective discharge of functions enjoined upon the appellant by section 15(1). As a result of the impugned judgment the appellant Election Authority has been relegated to the position of an helpless onlooker of the illegalities and irregularities committed during the elections, without any power to intervene - This is nut and cannot be the intention of the law giver, as gathered from the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules.
10. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on the other hand submitted that the Election Authority, as defined in section 15 of the Punjab Local Councils Ordinance could exercise only those powers and perform such functions, which were prescribed in the Rules, as provided for to - subsection (3) of section 15 of the Ordinance. According to him, all the relevant powers had been prescribed in the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 and the powers exercisable by it, in the conduct of elections were duly specified therein: In this connection, he invited our attention to Rules 4, 5, 8, 9 (3), 10 (I-A), 11, 12 16, 28, 41, 42, 45, 49, 58; 61, 62, 64 and' 87.
He further submitted that where the statute itself intended to confer any power on the Election Authority it did so specifically and in this behalf referred to section 2t-A, which was added by the Punjab Local Councils (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, whereby the Election Authority was conferred the power of disqualifying any candidate contesting elections as a nominee of a political party.
According to him, no further power was available to -it. He supported the finding of the learned Judges of the Division Bench that if the interpretation of subsection (1) of section 17 of the Ordi-- nance, as contended for by the appellant herein was accepted, it would mike the provisions of subsection (2) of section 17 redundant.
11. We have given our anxious consideration to the `matter. We not that the creation of a high powered authority like the Election Authority which is to consist of three members and whose Chairman must be or has been a Judge of the High Court to ensure that an election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules, is a recent phenomena- in Election Laws, intended to see the in the conduct of elections there should be fairness, impartiality and honest and that the provisions of the law are not violated. Thus, subsection (2) of section 17 does not appear to be a provision which was intended to restrict the general and plenary power of superintendence conferred by section 17(1) of the Ordinance and they appears to be force in the submission that the interpretation '"placed by the Division, Bench of the High Court ousting the jurisdiction of the appellant Election Authority to take any remedial action until after the, election has taken place i. e. When the result of the poll has been notified under Rule 41 (2) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 would appear to defeat the mandate of the law given in sec--tion 17(1) that the Election Authority must see "that an election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and Rules". On the interpretation given by the learned Judge of the Division Bench, the appellant Authority would cease to have jurisdiction in the conduct of the elections and all illegalities and irregularities committee during the course of the elections would not be amenable to correction by the Election Authority.
12. It is true that in the terms in Which section 17(1) is couched all disputes and election irregularities could be dealt with thereunder. However, Section 24 of the Ordinance provided that "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition". Therefore; in order to clarify the kind of matters which can be enquired into by the Election Authority under subsection (1) and those matters, which are to be enquired into by the Election Tribunals, subsection (2) of section 17 was added. This is evident from the terms of subsection (2) which provides that `nothing contained in subsec--tion (1/ shall be construed to mean..."
The use of the word "construed" is clearly intended to clarify further that this provision is in the, nature of a declaratory or a clarificatory provision, whereby the law maker has interpreted subsection (1) of section 17, so 'he to ensure that the Election Authority remains on the right paths.
Irregularities, violation of the law and other election malpractices impairing the honesty and fairness of the elections could be corrected by the Election Authority under subsection (1) of section 17, but as the law also provided for calling in question an election by an election petition, those matters which could be questioned by an election petition were debarred frost the jurisdiction of the Election Authority. However, an election petition can be presented after the publication of the result in the official Gazette but as the Election Authority is charged with the duty of seeing that as election held honestly, justly and fairly in accordance with law, the irregularities which occur before the notification of election under Rule 41 (2) of the Election Rules, notifying the name of the returned candidate in the official Gazette can be taken up by the Election Authority. In other words it is only those post election disputes, which can be taken up by the Election Tribunal by an election petition that have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Election Authorities and no other. A similar view has been taken by this Court in James Ilyas Masih v. Punjab Local Councils Election Authority Lahore and others (1981SCMR919) and Ahmad Khan v. Punjab Local Council Election Authority and others (1981SCMR1250)
13. As for Mr. Bhinder's contention that the Election Authority can only deal with the matters prescribed in the Election Rules, this contention is obviously without force as section 15 of the Ordinance does not control section 17.
14. The result is that this appeal is accepted. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 12-4-1980 is set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.