' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-The petitioner has been removed from the office of Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Jaranwala by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 vide order dated 15th May, 1982 on the ground that he had delivered a speech which was violative of rules 17 and 19 of the Punjab Local Councils (Conduct of Members) Rules, 1981. The petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department vide order dated 7th August, 1982. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the speech of the petitioner was not at all violative of the rules 17 and 19 of the aforesaid Rules because the petitioner was neither 'encouraging encroachment' nor, indulging in political activity promoting interest of any political party, defunct or otherwise, or of any group or faction ("or" omitted from book but is in the Gazette). He also contended that the orders are mala fide. Mr. Abdul Waheed, Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad had initiated no-confidence motion against the petitioner twice over which had fallen through and Mr. Javed Quresbi was acted as Magistrate under the Deputy Commissioner whose brother is the Secretary to the Government who has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.. Secondly, the petitioner had defeated Mst. Shugufta Begum wbo was being supported by Kh. Habib Ullah and in the present election Kh. Habib Ullah is supporting a candidate other than the one petitioner is supporting and it is the maneouvring of Kh. Habib Ullah that the present proceedings have been taken.
3. Taking the last contention first the allegation of mala fides are wild and far-fetched. D. C. Had performed this public duty and Mr. Qureshi had nothing to do. On merits, it was for the authorities to find out as to whether the speech made by the petitioner was violative of the rules. The speech of the petitioner had been tape-recorded and transcribed. The petitioner admitted that he had made the speech. He has also annexed a copy of the same. Learned counsel has read that. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the speech can be interpreted differently than the way it was done by the authorities is no ground for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction because a finding of fact arrived at cannot be interfered with for the reason that the evidence on which the finding was based is susceptible to different interpretation.
4. In view of the above, no interference in exercise of the Constitutional Jurisdiction is called for. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.