' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.-The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner, Haji Abdullah, and respondent No, 2, Abdul Qadoos, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, contested election for membership of the Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur. The respondent was declared to have been elected as member because as he secured 770 votes as against 580 votes obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent by means of the present petition.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not file an election petition under rule 66 of the Cantonments (Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 199, to assail the election in dispute because the result thereof has not so far been published in the official Gazette as required by sub-rule (4) of rule 50 of the said Rules. It was maintained by him that since no other adequate remedy was available to the petitioner to voice his grievance against the election of the respondent, he has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that the petitioner would be able to file an election petition within seven days of the publication of the result of the disputed election in the official Gazette, but he does not want to wait till the publication of the result as aforesaid because he is suffering an irreparable injury due to the functioning of the respondent as a member of Cantonment Board without his being qualified to be elected as such. The plea raised by the petitioner is that the respondent was not entitled to participate in the election inasmuch as he had not completed two years since his resignation from the post of teacher in a Government Primary School. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
3. Rules 50 and 66, referred to above, read as follows :- "50. Declaration of results-(1) The Returning Officer shall, after obtaining the result of the count or of the drawl of the lot, declare by posting at the Board's office the candidates who have, or who are deemed to have, received the highest number of votes in their respective wards to be elected.
(2) The Returning Officer shall, immediately after posting the notice under sub-rule (1), submit to the President a return of the election in Form .
(3) The public notice shall contain the names and the total number of votes received by each contesting candidate.
(4) The President shall forward the result to the Federal Government and the Federal Government shall publish it in the official Gazette.
66. Officer to whom the petition should be presented.-A petition calling in question the validity of an election or the return of a particular candidate may be presented in writing to the District Judge of the District within which the election has been held (or where there is no District Judge, to such judicial officer as the Provincial Government may appoint in this behalf) within seven days after the date on which the result of the election was declared either by a person who was a candidate at the election or by not less than five persons entitled to vote at the said election : ' Provided that no such petition shall be presented on the ground either that the name of any person qualified to vote has been omitted from the electoral roll or that the name of any person not so qualified has been inserted in the roll."
4. It is evident from rule 66 that an election petition can be filed within seven days after the date on which the result of the election is declared. A perusal of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 50 would reveal that the result is to be declared by means of a public notice which is required to be displayed in the office of the Cantonment Board. The election in dispute took place on 16th October, 1983. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the result of the election was announced on the same day: It was not his case that on 16th October, 1983 the result was not declared by means of public notice in terms of the provisions of rule 50. Sub-rule (2) of rule 50 required the Returning Officer to submit to the President of the Cantonment Board the result of the election in Form `J' after posting of notice under sub-rule (1). Annexure 'A' is a copy of the said return. This return is, dated the 29th October, 1983. This means that the result was declared by means of public notice before 29th October, 1983. The return shows that the Cantonment Board had to deal with the election to only 3 seats of members. The number of the candidates was 8 in aggregate. It was, therefore, not difficult for the Board to put up notice declaring result of the election on the same day when the result was announced. Keeping all these factors in view we take it that on 16th October, 1983, the result of the election in dispute was declared in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 50. According to rule 66, the petitioner could challenge the result of the election, within 7 days of the declaration thereof, by making an election petition, but as that period has since run out he is now debarred from making such petition. Thus, due to his own negligence, he has missed the bus which could possibly take him to the destination.
5. We are unable to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of limitation for filing of election petition would commence from the date of publication of the result of the election in the official Gazette. No doubt, according to sub-rule (4) of rule 50, the result of the election is required to be published in the said Gazette but there is nothing in rule 66 to suggest that the period of limitation would be computed from the date of publication of the result as aforesaid.
Instead it is to be calculated from the date of the declaration of the result as contemplated by sub-rule (1) of rule 50. Here, we would like to refer to sub-rule (I) of rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, whereunder an election petition can be presented within 30 days next after the publication of the result in the official Gazette. These rules relate to election to Local Councils. If the makers of the rules involved in the instant case had also intended that the period of limitation prescribed for calling in question the validity of election of a member of the Cantonment Board should also commence from the date of the publication of the result in the official Gazette a provision like the one embodied in sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules would have been made by diem in rule 66 of the former rules, but this has not been done. It appears that their desire was that the persons aggrieved by the result of any election should be able to question the validity thereof immediately on the declaration of the result without waiting for the publication of the result in the official Gazette. We feel that, in a way, the provisions contained in the Cantonments (Elections and Election Petitions)
Rules are more beneficial than those made in the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules because the experience has shown that after the result of election to the Local Councils is announced, the defeated candidates become restive and challenge the result by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court or by moving the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority because they do not want to wait till the publication of result in the official Gazette. The publication of result in the Gazette takes quite some time. After the result of the election is so published, the proceedings taken out by them before forums other than that of Election Tribunals are thrown out and they are directed to file election petitions, if so advised. Thus, the bother and expense to which they are put all goes waste. As against this, a candidate who has lost election of the seat of a member of the Cantonment Board can question the election, if he so likes, by filing an election petition under rule 66 immediately on the declaration of the result by the Returning Officer. We have no intention to suggest that the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules should be brought into accord with the Cantonments (Elections and Election Petitions) Rules or vice versa but we would like to emphasize that there is marked difference between the two sets of rules so far as the starting point of period of limitation for making an election petition is concerned. We cannot overlook that difference on the score of the provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 50 of the Cantonments (Elections and Election Petitions) Rules which requires the result of an election to be published in the official Gazette. This formality, in our opinion, has nothing to do with the period of limitation.
Accordingly, we hold that the period of limitation for making of an election petition, under rule 66, commences from the date of the declaration of the result in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 50 and not from the date of publication of the result in pursuance of sub-rule (4) thereof.
6. It is true that an aggrieved person can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court if no other adequate remedy is available to him. The petitioner, who is aggrieved by the result of the election in dispute, had an adequate remedy to assail the said election inasmuch as he could file an election petition under rule 66 of the Cantonments (Elections and Election Petitions) Rules. If he had neglected to make such petition within the period of limitation prescribed by law, he has himself failed to make use of the adequate remedy open to him. The failure of the petitioner to avail of an ordinary remedy does not entitle him to invoke an extraordinary remedy, namely, the remedy of Constitutional petition. If a contrary view is taken, all persons who do not file suits or take out other proceedings within the periods of limitation prescribed therefor would rush to the superior Courts and voice their grievances by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction thereof and thus the very object of creating other Courts and appointing authorities for hearing such suits and proceedings would be defeated. We, therefore, do not permit the petitioner to challenge the disputed election by means of writ petition after having failed to file the election petition in time.
7. Resultantly, this petition fails. It is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.