' FAZL-i-MAHMOOD, J.--This constitutional petition has been filed by Habibullah Khan, who is admittedly an employee of the Government Transport, Punjab, to challenge the legality of the order of Election Tribunal, declaring as void his election as a worker member of the Municipality Dera Ghazi Khan, on the ground that he was ineligible/ disqualified to be elected.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner is admittedly in service of the Government Transport Service, Punjab, a statutory corporation owned, financed and controlled by the Punjab Government. He is enrolled as a voter in Municipal Ward No. 43, Dera Ghazi Khan. He was elected to the special interest seat of worker to Municipal Committee, Dera Ghazi Khan, at an election held on 29th October, 1983. He and Ahmed Nawaz, respondent No. 3 had secured equal number of votes and then the luck favoured him on the spin of the coin.
3. The petitioner's election was challenged by Respondent No. 2, Ashiq Muhammad, through an election petition filed under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It was alleged that the petitioner was not qualified to contest the election as he had been transferred since the year 1979 to the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi/Attock circle and was not a worker of Dera Ghazi Khan.
4. The petitioner contested the election petition and filed his written statement controverting the allegations of the opposite side. He averred in his written statement that he was residing in Dera Ghazi Khan and was employed with Government Transport Service, Dera Ghazi Khan. The same stand has been affirmed by him in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.
5. The Election Tribunal, after framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties, by order, dated 11-3-1984 declared the petitioner's election as void after holding him to be ineligible to contest the election as he was not qualified to be elected to the workers seat at the time of his election. The case set up by the petitioner was that orders of his transfer were stayed by the Labour Courts and the N.1. R.C. and the Government had gone up in appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the matter of his transfer; that he was enrolled as a voter in the municipal area of Dera Ghazi Khan and was covered by the definition of worker given in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and thus qualified to be a member of local council.
6. This writ petition was on 18-3-1989 admitted to a regular hearing by a Division Bench to consider the question whether the petitioner was disqualified to be a candidate or a member of local council by virtue of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Clause (f) of section 21 is relevant.
21. Disqualification of candidates and members.--(1) A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council -- (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) if he for the time being is disqualified for membership of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force.
7. At the hearing before us, the petitioner who admitted to be in service of the Government Transport Service Punjab was unable to show that he was not qualified to be a member of a local council in view of the provisions of section 21(f) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance read with Article 10(4) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977 (P.O. No. 5 of 1977).
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner while not disputing the fact that the petitioner was in service of a statutory body covered by section 10(4) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977, however, contended that his case would not be hit by the provisions of Article 10(4) of the President's Order No. 5 of 1977 because the provisions of the special statute i.e. the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, made him eligible for election to a local council as a 'worker' since he was covered by the definition of this expression as given in the Ordinance. He further submits that the provisions of a special statute like the Ordinance would prevail against the provisions of the Ordinance which governed elections to the Houses of Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. It was further argued that since the political activity and process was banned under Martial Law Orders and directions, the Ordinance was also dormant and its provisions like Article 16(9) were ineffective to disqualify him from election to a local council seat.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides.
' We consider it unnecessary to enter into a detailed discussion because the question raised in this petition already stands authoritatively resolved by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Haleem v. Muhammad Amin Khan and another 1982 SCMR 418. The precedent case arose out of election to a local council held under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
It may be observed that section 28, clause (g) of the N.-W.F.P. Ordinance is pari materia to clause
(f) of section XXI of the Punjab Ordinance. Section 28 of the N-W.F.P. Ordinance reads:-- "28. Disqualifications of candidates and members.--A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a Local Council-- (a)
(6)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g) if he is for the time being, disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of Parliament or Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force."
' A question was raised before the Supreme Court that disqualifica tions under the President's Order No. 5 of 1977 could not be read by reference under clause (g) of section 28 of the N.-W.F.P.
Ordinance. The argument was repelled by observing:-- "Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Umar Drat Cheema v. Nazar Muhammad and 'others 1980 SCM R 156, it was observed by one of us (Muhammad Hateem, Actg.
C.J.) that the relevant provision of law "itself incorporates disqualification as provided by the President's Order No. 5 of 1977 as also those provided in other similar laws." It was further observed that "the principle of interpretation is that what is enacted has to be given full effect and extraneous considerations cannot be employed to make it redundant or to detract it from the meaning which it conveys."
' Similar position prevails under clause (f) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It was not disputed by the petitioner that he was at the time of election and continues' to be in service of the Punjab Road Transport Service as a ticket-examiner. It was also not disputed that Government Transport Service is a body fully covered by sub-Article (4) of Article 10 of the President's Order No. V of 1977, as it is owned, controlled and financed by the Punjab Government.
10. The enunciation of law made by the Supreme Court in the cited precedent would thus fully govern the facts of this case and the fate of the petitioner from being elected to and from being a member of a local council under Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Similar view has been taken in respect of a person in employment of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. in the case of Feteh Khan v. Sharif Khan reported as PLD 1984 Lah.
106.
11. We may further observe that the mere fact that the petitioner is covered by the definition of worker as given in clause (lix) of section 3 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, is of no avail to him for on a combined reading- of this provision together with clause (f) of section 21 of the Ordinance and sub-Article (4) of Article 13 of the President's Order No. 5 of 1977, it emerges clear that those workers are eligible to be elected as members of local council to represent special interest seat who are not disqualified to be a member of the Parliament or Provincial Assembly. The petitioner is clearly so disqualified.
12. The next question which then arises for consideration is whether the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner to help him retain the ill- gotten gain or allow perpetuation of an illegality even where the order of the Election Tribunal is not found strictly justifiable. The answer must be in the negative. Reference may be made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Walt Muhammad and others v. Sakhi Muhammad and others reported as PLD 1974 SC 106 wherein at page 109 it has been observed:-- "Grant of relief in writ jurisdiction being entirely discretionary with the High Court, the learned Judge would have certainly acted in aid of justice in refusing relief to the respondents on the facts of the case, even if because of any technical reason, the order of Khan Saeed-ud-Din Khan was not strictly found justifiable. It is well-settled principle that the High Court's writ jurisdiction can be invoked in aid of justice and not to help retention of iligotton gains."
13. It is unnecessary to dilate on other supplementary contentions raised by the learned counsel because in substance they stand answered by us in the above discussion. The writ petition fails