' This writ petition has been filed by Ali Ahmad whose election has been declared as void on the chief ground that the statutory functionaries had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of rules 58 and 59 of the Election Rules framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, inasmuch as no notice was issued to the members of the Union Council for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and a fresh election has been ordered.
2. The brief facts are that the elections of the members to Union Council, Moong, Tehsil Phalle, District Gujrat were held as per schedule of the Election Authority and the names of the members including the special interest seats were duly notified. The election of the Chairman of said Union Council was held on 8-11-1983 in which the petitioner was elected as unopposed. The meeting was attended by 11 out of 18 members. The petitioner's election was challenged by an election petition by three of the members of the Union Council on the principal grievance that it was obligatory on the functionaries to serve notice on every member for participating in the election in question as was required by rule 58 of the Election Rules, 1979.
3. In the course of the trial of the election petition, three issues were framed, firstly, whether the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, second, whether the election in question was illegal, void and liable to be set aside; and thirdly, whether the petitioners had no cause of action to bring the election petition. As regards issue No.1 the onus of proof was placed on the present petitioner who was a respondent in the petition. The Election Tribunal recorded the finding that except the three election petitioners none claimed to be a candidate and thus the petition was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, he took up and disposed of issues Nos. 2 and 2- A together. The Election Tribunal in this behalf noted that the petitioner who was a respondent in the election petition had admitted that no notice was served on any member of the local council with regard to the election in question. It was further admitted by him that election petitioner No.1, namely, Muhammad Hayat was a candidate for the chairmanship who canvassed for his election till the election was over. It was thus held that in the face of the admission of the present petitioner that no notice of the election as required under rule 58 had been served upon any member of the local council, it stood proved that a breach of aforementioned rule had been committed. In such a situation, the Election Tribunal relied on the well-known principle that when the law requires a certain thing to be done in a certain manner then that thing must be done in the manner or not at all. It was further observed that ,there was a gross negligence on the part of the functionaries charged with duty to carry out the purposes of law as enjoined by rule 58 of the Election Rules. The other objection of the respondent to the election petition and petitioner in the present writ petition that the election petition could only have been filed by a candidate and since the election petitioners were not such candidates therefore, they had no cause of action to file the election petition, was overruled on the view that the present petitioner had admitted in his written reply that all the members of the local council were the candidates for chairmanship. Moreover, the petitioner while appearing as R.W.1 before the Election Tribunal had admitted this fact that election petitioner No.1 was a candidate for chairmanship. This admission was sufficient according to the learned Tribunal to maintain the election petition. The Tribunal further took the view that Chairman of a local council can be elected only in a meeting of all the members convened for the purposes of election of Chairman and by virtue of rule 59 a member present at the meeting could propose the name of any other member or his own name as a candidate for election of the Chairman and the candidature of a member arises only at that time in that meeting. It was thus concluded that had the members been informed about the election in question they would have participated in the meeting convened for the purpose and per admission of the respondent to the petition and the writ petitioner before us they would have been the candidates for the election in question. It was finally held that since there was non-compliance with the requirements of the rule in question which were mandatory in character, violation thereof had materially affected the result of the election and thus the election of the petitioner was declared as void.. The two issues were thus decided against the present petitioner. In the matter of relief, after declaring the election of the petitioner as Chairman to be void, a fresh election was ordered.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we have reached the conclusion that this writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. We may advert here to the deposition of the petitioner Ali Ahmad who appeared as R.W.1 before the Election Tribunal. In his statement he has during the cross-examination clearly admitted that he stood informed of the meeting only by reading in a newspaper and officially he was never informed about the holding of the election. It was also admitted as correct that there was no service effected on the election petitioners who are respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in the writ petition. It was further admitted to be correct that no member of the Union Council was officially informed through a notice regarding the holding of the election of the Chairman. Later, they came to know of it through radio and newspapers.
6. A bare perusal of rules 58 and 59 of the Election Rules, 1979 framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 would show that after the issue of notification of the names of the members of the local council including members belonging to minority communities and special interest seats the Election Authority shall by notification appoint a date for meeting of the members of each local council to elect the Chairman and Vice- Chairman. Thereafter, it is obligatory for the Deputy Commissioner, after the publication of the notification by the Election Authority to issue notice to all members of each local council for the meeting to elect the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and to fix a place for the said meeting; to appoint a Presiding Officer to preside over the same: and to supply an authentic list of all members of each local council to the Presiding Officer. Thereafter, rule 59 lays down the procedure for the meeting to be held for the election of the Chairman. It is at this meeting that the Presiding Officer shall call upon the members to elect a Chairman from amongst the members of a local council and thereafter a member present at the meeting may propose the name of any other member for election as Chairman, the member proposed shall be deemed to be the candidate for election to the office of the Chairman and in the absence of a proposal a candidate may propose his own name for Chairmanship. Then, there is a procedure for withdrawal from candidature. Sub-rule (4) of rule 59 then stipulates that if there is only one candidate for the office of the Chairman he shall be declared by the Presiding Officer to have been duly elected as Chairman and in the event of there being more than one candidate a poll shall be held through secret ballot.
7. It is patent on the face of the proceedings which were impugned in the election that there has been a serious breach of the requirements of the aforesaid rules. The meeting conveyed at which the petitioner got himself elected as unopposed Chairman by excluding eight members of the union council in flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of law was thus rightly declared to be illegal and his election as void. The Election Tribunal cannot be said to have either misread the evidence or misapplied the law or committed excess of jurisdiction, abuse of jurisdiction or failed to exercise the same. The service of notice of the meeting for election of the Chairman was an inviolable requirement of the law and if it was circumvented then the results which flowed therefrom cannot be blessed with any sanctity and the election of the petitioner has been rightly set aside. In the circumstances, we feel that the order of the Election Tribunal calls for no interference in exercise of our discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction and it does not suffer from any infirmity which would render it liable to be declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.