' ABDUL WAHEED, J.-The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to assail the validity of an order passed by the Election Authority, respondent No, 1, on 6th July, 1983, with regard to delimitation of Electoral Units Nos. 4 and 5 of District Council, Bhakkar.
2. The preliminary delimitation of the Electoral Units was carried out by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/Delimitation Officer, District Bhakkar, respondent No,
3. According to his proposal, Electoral Unit No, 2 comprised villages, namely, Gauharwala, Mahni and Haiderabad, with a total population of 53,018, while Electoral Unit No, 3 consisted of villages, namely, Littan, Mankera and Chak. No, 67/ML with a total population of 48,870. The petitioner raised objections to the above proposal. The Delimitation Officer submitted his proposal alongwith the objections and his recommendations against them so the District and Sessions Judge/Appellate Authority, Bhakkar, respondent No, 2, who vide his order, dated 9th of June, 1983, modified the proposed delimitation on the ground that it lacked geographical compactness. He directed that Electoral Unit No, 2 should combine villages, namely, Gauharwala, Mahni and Littan with a total population of 47,582 and villages, namely, Haiderabad, Mankera and Chak No, 67/ML with a total population of 54,306 should be assigned to Electoral Unit No, 3.
3. Malik Muhammad Iqbal and Aman Ullab, respondents No, 4 and 5 challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority br separate petitions before the Election Authority, respondent No,
1. The Election Authority vide its order dated 6th of July, 1983, accepted the petitions and restored the delimitation of Electoral Units Nos. 4 and 5 as proposed by the Delimitation Officer observing that the difference of population in the Electoral Units as delimited by the Delimitation Officer is 4,148, whereas in the case finalized by the Appellate Authority it is 6,724 and 'the delimitation as proposed by the Delimitation Officer has been done by keeping in view the two basic principles governing the delimitation viz., equality of population of electoral units and geographical compactness, which principles and in particular the one regarding avoiding disparity of population had been lost sight of while finalising the list."
4. The petitioner feels dissatisfied with the order of the Election Authority.
5. The main contention pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdiction exercised by the Election Authority in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority offends against sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. According to this sub-rule, the Election Authority may examine the record relating to the delimitation of an electoral unit of any Local Council and direct the Delimitation Officer to correct any error or to bring the delimitation of the electoral unit in conformity with any direction earlier given by the Authority.
He argues that since the delimitation as finalized by the Appellate Authority was not vitiated by any error or contravention of any direction given earlier by the Election Authority, it did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. The contention has no force. Paragraph 23 of the Manual of Instructions for the revision of delimitation of electoral units of Local Councils unequivocally envisages that the first and foremost principle of delimitation of electoral units of a local council is equality of population. The Appellate Authority while delimiting Electoral Units 4 and 5 did not obviously bear in mind this cardinal principle, as rightly observed by the Election Authority in the impugned order. The difference of population in the electoral units in the delimitation as proposed by the Delimitation Officer in 4,148 which increased to 6724 in that as approved by the Appellate Authority. Besides, the electoral units as formed by the Delimitation Officer are more compact geographically as the distance between the far ends is less in this case.
6. In view of the foregoing observations, we find that the impugned order passed by the Election Authority does not militate against law. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, left bear their own costs.