' GHAZANFAR ALI GONDAL, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 1 1 th October, 1983 of the President Cantonment Board, Wah Cantt. Rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order, dated 8th October, 1983 of the Returning Officer, Wah Cantt., whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner had been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed his nomination papers for election to the membership of Cantonment Board, Wah Cantt., from Ward No,
1. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers on 8th October, 1983 on the ground that according to the documentary evidence available on the record of the case, petitioner was the President of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Wah. The petitioner filed an appeal before the President, Cantonment Board, Wah Cantt.
Against the said order. The President, Cantonment Board, Wah Cantt., as appellate authority, rejected the appeal with the observation that the agent of the petitioner had brought out facts indicating that the petitioner had been subjected to victimization by the' Pakistan Peoples Party and that he was not associated with any political party presently and even if this stand of the petitioner was taken to be correct, the rejection of his papers was still maintainable under section 99(1) (f ) read with Explanation H appended to said section of Representation of People Act, 1976.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the provision of section 99(1) ( f ) read with Explanation II appended to the said section of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (Act LXXXV of 1976) was not attracted to the facts of the present case as it debarred a person from contesting election if he had at any time on or after 20th December, 1971 been an office-bearer (at the National or Provincial set up) of a political party dissolved under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Political Parties Act, 1962 (Act III of 1962) and that Pakistan Peoples Party had neither been dissolved under the Political Parties Act, 1962 at any time nor was the petitioner ever an office-bearer at the National or Provincial set up of the party. He has further submitted that documentary evidence had been placed on record to show that the petitioner left Pakistan Peoples Party in the beginning of 1976.
4. Mr. Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, has conceded that Pakistan Peoples Party was never dissolved under section 6 (2) of Political Parties Act, 1962, nor the petitioner was an office-bearer of the said party at the National or Provincial set up and that, therefore, section 99(1) (f) of Representation of the People Act, 1976, is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. He has, however, tried to support the decisions of the respondents on ground other than one on which the nomination papers of the petitioner and his appeal had been rejected. His contention is that under section 15-B (2Xg) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (Act II of 1924) as amended by Cantonment (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 (Ordinance XLIV of 979), a person is to be disqualified for being elected as, and for being a member of, a Board if he is for the time being disqualified for the membership of an elective body under any law for the time being in force and under sub-paragraph (7-a) of paragraph (b) of clause (2) of Article 10 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 (P.O. 5 of 1977), as amended by the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1979 (P.O. 20 of 1979), a person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member, of Parliament if he is member of a Political Party which is not eligible to participate in an election to a seat in Houses of Parliament or Provincial Assembly or to nominate and put up a candidate at any such election and under the said provision, the petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election.
5. Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the proposition that in proceedings of the writ petition, a respondent can support an order on the basis of grounds other than the one on which case had been decided by the Special Tribunal and has in reply submitted that to attract sub-paragraph (7-a) of paragraph (b) of clause (2) of Article 10 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order 1977, the candidate should be a member of the party at the time of filing the nomination papers. According to him, the past association of the petitioner prior to the said date with the Pakistan Peoples Party is not covered by the said provision.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the question raised by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. We are clear that the language of sub-sparagraph (7-a) ibid, clearly shows that to attract the disqualification under the said sub-paragraph, the candidate should be a member of a party at the time when the nomination papers are filed. We have seen the record produced before the Returning Officer as well as the appellate authority, which contains an application, dated 12th September, 1983 filed by the petitioner with the Government for grant of permission to fight election in Cantonment Board, wherein after describing that the petitioner had joined the Pakistan Peoples Party in 1973 and had been made the President of the Party of Wah Cantt. And senior Vice-President of the Party of Tehsil Rawalpindi, he had stated that due to victimization on account of his having refused to compromise on principles, he had left the party in the beginning of 1976. At the foot of second page of this application, Mir Ali Ahmed Khan Talpur. Defence Minister had written as under :- "Raja Zafarul Haq, Minister for Information and Broadcasting knows the applicant personally. He vouchsafed the credentials of the applicant and confirmed that the statement made by Malik Akbar is correct.
' The request may please be acceded to."
' It is clear from the above endorsement that Raja 'Zafarul Haq had made a statement to Mir Ali Ahmed Khan Talpur assuring him that the petitioner had really left the party in the beginning of 1976. There is no rebuttal to the said document available on the record of respondents 1 and 2 and none has been placed on the record of this writ petition. It, therefore, stands established that the petitioner had left the said party in the beginning of the year 1976 and obviously, therefore, at the time of filing of the nomination papers he was no more a member of said party.
7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the point raised by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 to support the rejection of the nomination papers made by Returning Officer and rejection of appeal by the President Cantonment Board is of no consequence and we have no hesitation in repelling the same.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No, 3 has also conceded that section 99 (1) (f) of the Representation of People Act, 1976, is not attracted to the facts of the present case. He, however, supports the order of rejection of nomination-papers by the Returning Officer and rejection of appeal of the petitioner by the appellate authority on another ground for which, besides section 15- B(2)(g) of Cantonment Act, 1924, as amended by Cantonment (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, he relies upon section 21 (2) (h) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. For the sake of easy reference, the said two provisions are given in extenso as below :- "The Cantonments Act, 1924.
15-B (2) A person shall be disqualified for being elected as, and for being a member of, a Board if he :-
(g) is for the time being disqualified for the membership of an elective body under any law for the time being in force".
The Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
21 (1) A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a Local Council-an office- bearer, of a political party at local, district, divisional, provincial of national level.
' Explanation.-The term 'local level' in this clause includes Mohallah, village and tehsil level : ' Provided that nothing herein contained shall apply to a person who immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, was a member of the Federal or a Provincial Cabinet or of the Federal or ' ' Provincial Council or any Local Council under this Ordinance : ' Provided further that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this clause, Government may, on its own motion or on a representation made to it, allow any person, by an order in writing, to be a candidate or a member of a local council."
' Contention of the learned counsel for the said contesting respondent based upon above provisions of law is that petitioner having been an office-bearer of Pakistan Peoples Party at the local level from 1973 to beginning of 1976 on his own showing as per admission made in the above noted application stood disqualified for membership of Cantonment Board and submits that the order of rejection of the nomination papers of petitioner is sustainable on that ground.
9. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner in reply is that the words 'for the time being in force' used in section 15-B (2) (g) of Cantonment Act, 1924, mean the law for the time being in force in Cantonment areas alone. His submission is that the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, is not in force in Cantonment areas and, therefore, the disqualification in section 15-B(2) (g) is inapplicable to a person contesting an election in a Cantonment area. He has further pointed out that local self-government in the Cantonment areas falls in item No, 2 of the Federal Legislative List contained in Fourth Schedule of 1973 Constitution, while the local self-government in other areas is a Provincial Subject as it is not available either in the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List and that under the second proviso to section 21 (2) (h) ibid, it is only the Provincial Government which can permit a candidate, notwithstanding his having remained at any time on or after 20th December, 1971 the office-bearer of a political party, to be a candidate for and to contest the election to a local council and that the Provincial Government cannot allow a person to contest the election to the Cantonment Board.
10. We have given our anxious thought to the point raised by the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 as well as the reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 on the point must prevail. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is disqualified for membership of an elective body under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as he has been an office- bearer of the Pakistan Peoples Party after 20th of December, 1971. His objection that the words `any law for the time being in force' in section 15-B (2) (g) of Cantonment Act, 1924, mean any law for the time being in force in Cantonment areas alone is not borne out by the language of the said provision. The adjective 'any' in the phrase 'elective body under any law for the time being in force', extends the scope of the word 'law' to a law other than the laws which are in force in Cantonment areas. The said adjective excludes particularization of any law and its circumscription to only the law which provides for disqualification in Cantonment areas. The law maker was using a word of a very wide import and he could not have used such a vast word if the intention was to restrict the disqualifying laws to those in operation in Cantonment areas alone. If that had been the intention, he would have added to the words the law for the time being in force, the restricting words 'in Cantonment areas' towards the end of the provision. This, however, was not done. In our view there are no other words in the said provision which limit the wide generality of word 'any' in the said phrase and confine thejaid word only to the laws in force in Cantonments alone. The absence of ay such words in the provision shows that legislative intent was to incorporate the disqualification contained in any law whatsoever in force in the country irrespective of its applicability to a province alone including said provincial statute in Cantonment Act, 1924, so as to make the same as integral part of the said Act. Furthermore, tenor of section 15-B (2)(g) shows that by introducing it, the law-maker was seeking to bring the provisions of law in Cantonment Act, 1924, in respect of disqualification for the membership to a Cantonment Board at par with disqualifications prescribed for election to local councils in the provinces. It would look strange if in an election of a local council, a person who has at any time on or after 20th December, 1971 been an office-bearer of a political party at the local level be debared from standing and contesting for election to membership of a local council while a person suffering from similar disability but resident or owner or occupant of a place a few yards away in a Cantonment area should be allowed to contest an election for membership of the Cantonment Board. The interpretation, which the learned counsel wants us to place on section 15-B (2) (g) of Cantonment Act, 1924, would create the said anomaly and discrimination, the intention to do which, cannot be attributed to the law-maker. Furthermore, the said interpretation would set at naught the clear intent of the law-maker reflected in the provision itself to bring the provision of law of elections in local self-government in Cantonment areas on an equal footing with provision of law of election in regard to local self-government in areas other than Cantonments.
11. The next plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the local self-government in Cantonment areas is a Federal Subject and for that reason, the disqualifications contained in Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which is relatable only to local self-government in the areas other than Cantonment areas in the Punjab, is not applicable to the Cantonment areas, is hardly of any avail if it is considered that the provision extending the disqualification for election to membership of a local council to election to membership of Cantonment Board has been made by the Acting President by providing section 15-B(g) in the Cantonment Act, 1924, by means of Cantonment (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979. The Acting President has done so in exercise of his legislative powers. His legislative power to adopt by reference any disqualification in other statutes regarding elections t elective bodies was untramelled and was not hedged in by the condition that he cannot adopt in a Federal Statute any such disqualification made applicable in a Provincial Statute. The Acting President had as much power t legislate by incorporation of a provision available in a Provincial Statute a provision available in Federal Legislature. Therefore, while interpreting section. 15-B(2) (g), it cannot be said that disqualification contained in Provincial Statute, namely section 21 (1)(h) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, cannot be made applicable in the said Federal Statute.
12. Further, objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under second proviso to section 21 (1) (h) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the Punjab Government would not be able to allow a person to contest the election in a Cantonment, notwithstanding that he had been an office-bearer of a political party appears to be fallacious as by virtue of sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph (2) of section 15-B, it is only the disqualifications contained in section 21(1) (h), Punjab Local Government. Ordinance, 1979 which had been adopted by reference in the Cantonment Act, 1924 and not the whole of said section 21 (1) (h) or the proviso attached to it whereby the rigour of disqualification in a Provincial Statute had been allowed to be softened.
13. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the disqualification contained in section 21(1)
(h) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, namely the factum of a candidate having remained an office-bearer of a political party at a local level at any time on or after 20th of December, 1971 had been incorporated in Cantonment Act, 1924 by section 15-B(2)(9g) of the said Statute and barred the petitioner from filing nomination papers in the election to membership of Cantonment Board.
14. In the above view of the matter, we are of considered opinion that the rejection of petitioner's nomination papers by the Returning Officer and the dismissal of his appeal by the President Cantonment Board, as appellate authority, is sustainable on the ground that the petitioner has been an office-bearer of Pakistan Peoples Party at local level after 20th December, 1971.
15. In view of the above, we think that this Writ Petition has no substance in it. We, therefore, dismiss the same with costs.