MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--This Constitutional petition is directed against order, dated 25-7-1984 of the President, Lahore Cantonment Board, whereby on a petition filed by Syed Haider Hussain Shah respondent, declared petitioner's election void and disqualified him for four years.
2. Wali Muhammad petitioner, Syed Haider Hussain Shah respondent and few others contested last local election held in the year 1983 from Ward No. 1, Sadar Bazar, Lahore Cantonment, Lahore. The petitioner having polled highest votes was declared returned candidate. Syed Haider Hussain Shah respondent filed an application under section 15-BB of the Cantonment Act, 1924 before respondent No. 1 alleging therein, that the petitioner was previously Amir of defunct Jammaat-e- Islami and is presently Nazim, Khidmat-e-Islami, Lahore Cantonment Area. He had contented election on political party basis. He secured votes by projecting slogans of Jammaat-e-Islami and contravened the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15-BB of Cantonment Act, 1924.
The petitioner contested the application and controverted all the averments made therein. The respondent No. 1 recorded evidence led by the parties and on appraisal thereof found that the petitioner contested election on the basis of his affiliations with a defunct-political party.
3. Mr. M. Arif, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence on record does not establish that the petitioner contested election on party basis or violated relevant provisions of section 15-BB of Act II of 1924, so as to disqualify him thereunder.
4. Mian Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate, learned counsel for the contesting respondent supported the impugned order and referred to evidence on the record to show that the petitioner had affiliation with defunct-political party and had secured votes on that basis. He further argued that 'the decision of the Tribunal is based on proper appraisal of evidence on the record and is not liable to interference in writ jurisdiction.
Mr. Rashid Ahmad, Advocate. Representing respondent No. Adopted arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
The relevant provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924, contain "disqualification" are reproduced as under:-- "15-BB: Candidates not to contest election on political basis-- (1)No person contesting election to a Board shall, directly indirectly:-- (a)give himself out as a candidate or nominee of a political part (b)claim, draw or receive any financial or other assistanceany political party for the purposes of the election; (c)bear, display or carry any document, sign, insignia, flag any other thing indicating his association with, or affiliation a political party; (d)seek the votes or sympathies of the people on party basis or the basis of the manifesto of any political party; or (e)
(2)Whoever-- (a)
(b)having been elected as a member of a Board is found by President of the Board to have contravened the provisions subsection (1) shall cease forthwith to hold the office of s member and stand disqualified from being a candidate for election to a Board for a period of four years."
The perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal evaluated evidence on the record by referring to relevant documentary and evidence, and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had affiliation with defunct-political party and contested election on that basis. T Court cannot substitute its own finding for the judgment of the Triburnal In our view even if from the evidence on the record a different inferencew can possibly be drawn, it will not attract writ jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, having jurisdiction the matter. The words and expressions used in the above-quo provisions of law are of wide import. A candidate for election neither directly or indirectly can draw support from a political party nor co indicate his association with or affiliation to a political party. Accord to the finding of the Tribunal based on his overall assessm ent of evidence, the petitioner contravened the provisions of section 15-BB Act II of 1924 and had solicited support from voters on the basis his affiliation with a defunct-political party.
In Khawaja Muhammad Akh v . President, Cantonment Board, Sialkot Cantt. Election Author (Tribunal) and another 1981 SCMR 291 the Supreme Court declir to interfere in the order of the High Court dismissing writ petit directed against decision of the Election Authority as the same was ,based on overall assessm ent of evidence. The observations of the Supreme Court relevant to the extent are as follows:-- "It was the overall assessm ent of evidence before the Election Authority that a finding of fact with regard to the controversy raised before it, was rendered.
The other argument of the learned counsel relates to the assessment and appreciation of evidence by the Election Authority. The learned Judges in the High Court were perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the Election Authority. The reappraisal of the evidence, in the circumstances of the case, was not within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The impugned judgments are unexceptionable."
6.For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.