' In this writ petition the election of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as members of Local Council No 147 of Chak No, 90/W. P. Tehsil Mailsi, Dist rict Vehari from Wards Nos. 5 and 6 has been called in question.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the election 011 political basis by giving out themselves as candidates of Pakistan People's Party thereby violated section 21-A of Ordinance VI of 1979 and that the elections were conducted by respondent No, 3 in collusion with the said respondents and in violation of Rules 28 and 39, in that polling was disrupted on account of hooliganism of the said respondents an d their supporters and on account of failure of the Presiding Officer to allow the voters of 'he petitioner to cast their votes although they were present: at the polling station.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked whether the other remedies available have been availed of or not. He very candidly conceded that neither a petition before the Election Authority as provided by section 21-A nor an election petition before the Election Tribunal as provided by section 24 of Ordinance V1 of 1979 has been filed by the petitioner.
3. In the context of the above position the preliminary point that has to be taken into consideration before dealing with the merits of the case would be the maintainability of the writ petition.
4. The grievance of the petitioner that respondent No, 1 contested election in violation of section 2l- A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 thereby rendering himself disqualified can be redressed by filing petition before the Election Authority, as the said section empowers the Authority to decide this question. There can be no denying the position that the Authority would be the more appropriate forum to decide this issue which essentially relates to disputed questions of facts.
5. So far as the commission of corrupt and illegal practices and/holding of election in violation of Election Rules is concerned, the remedy of filing an election petition as provided by section 24 of Ordinance VI of 1979 is available to the petitioner. The Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions)
Rules having since been promulgated, there is no longer any impediment in the way of the petitioner to avail of this remedy.
6. The above discussion shows that there are adequate remedies available to the petitioner which he ha .s not admittedly availed of. In such a situation the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be invoked.
7. Since I have held that the writ petition is not maintainable. I do not feel called upon to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel as any observation that may be made by me while dealing with these contentions, of whatever tentative nature that may be, may cause prejudice to any of the parties.
' In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.