GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.--This petition has been filed on the grievance that the order of the Election Authority passed inter partes between the petitioner and respondent No,4 is not being implemented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala acting as an Appellate Authority against the rejection of nomination papers.
2. The brief facts are that the nomination dispute was referred by the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority to the Election Authority. The Punjab Election Authority by his order, dated 26-9- 1983 held that both the petitioner as well as respondent No,4 be allowed to contest the election and the dispute between the parties be remitted to the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala for decision afresh accordance with law. The petitioner as well as respondent No,4 consented to this course.
3. The operative order of the Election Authority is< couched in para. 9 which reads: "Meanwhile both the petitioner and respondent No,3 are allowed to contest the election but the result of election shall not be declared if any of the two parties, viz. The petitioner or respondent No,3 secures highest number of votes. In such an event the result of election shall be declared subject to the decision of the Appellate Authority as to the validity of the nomination paper of the present contesting parties, viz. The petitioner and respondent No,3."
' It may be observed at this stage that none of the parties challenged the order of the Election Authority before a superior forum or Court. That order has attained finality in law. After the remand of the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner gave an application for permission to participate in the election of the office of Chairman, Town Committee, Ghakhar. This application was refused by the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority after holding that the result had been withheld on the direction of the Appellate Authority pending confirmation of the signature of the seconder. The writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 5-11-1983 on the grievance that the order of the Election Authority is not being implemented.
4. Respondent No,4 is present in person and is also represented by his learned counsel Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No,4.
6. It is a common ground between the parties that they desire the implementation of the order of the Election Authority. That being the position, we can do no better than to direct the Deputy Commissioner as Appellate Authority to implement the order of the Election Authority who is otherwise obliged by law so to do. Both the parties stated before us that the appeal against the rejection of nomination paper is fixed for today before the Deputy Commissioner for decision. We direct the Deputy Commissioner to decide matter today and if that cannot be done since the composition of the Union Council will not be complete, therefore, he should postpone the Election of the Chairman till after the decision in this appeal, to ensure conformity with law as the petitioner states that he is a candidate for the Chairmanship.
Petition accepted.
1986 MLD 747 [Lahore] Be fore K .M. A . Samdani, J MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR--Petitioner versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB--Respondent Writ Petition No,563 of 1977, decided on 3rd DecPmher: 1977.
Educational institution-- ---Unfair means case--Replacement of sheets in answer book of examinee after examination was over--No one other than examinee was to get benefit from such replacement--Authorities, held, justified in holding examinee responsible for resorting to unfair means in circumstances.
[p. 747] A M. Farani, Bar-at-Law for Petitioner.
' Parawise comments have been received and perused..
' This is a case in which certain sheets in the petitioner's answer book were replaced after the examination was over. This was detected by the University authorities before the declaration of result, and the petitioner's result was accordingly withheld. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause why action should not be taken against him. His case before the authorities was that it was not he who had tampered with the answer book. He expressed his complete ignorance about it. The substituted sheets were admittedly not in his hand.
It is obvious that no one other than the petitioner could get benefit from the substitution. The University authorities were, therefore, justified in holding the petitioner responsible for the unfair mean resorted to.
' In these circumstances no interference by this Court is called for.
' The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.