MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--Qazi Inayatullah, petitioner, against whom respondent No.2 filed an election petition, under .Section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, was unseated from the membership of the Town Committee, Phalia and the election declared as a whole to be void by the Election Tribunal under its order dated 13-5-1989 assailed herein, on two counts. Firstly, he incurred election expenses beyond permissible limits and secondly he failed to submit statement of election expenses within the statutory period of Yl days. Only the second point has been debated before us. The learned counsel has quite magnanimously conceded that the expenditure statement which should have been submitted on 29-12-1987 was aoaially filed on 3-I- 1988 and was thus beyond time. Rule 69 of the Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1079, cats an ohlig_ation on a candidate for a seat of a local council to submit to the Returning Officer a statement of the election expenses and failure to comply with this rule is a corrupt practice within the meaning of Rule 73(7). Further where a returned candidate is found to be guilty of corrupt or illegal practice, Rule 13 of the Election Petitions Rules, 1979, empowers the Tribunal to declare his election to be void. However, under Rule 15 the Tribunal may declare an election as a whole to be void, if it is satisfied that the result of the election has been materially affected by reasons of:- "(a) the failure of any person to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance or the Election Rules; or
(b) he prevalence of extensive corrupt or illegal practice at the election.
2. The argument of the learned counsel is that unless on account of commission of corrupt practice attributed to the petitioner the result of the election was found to have been materially affected to which effect there is no finding, the election could not have been declared as a whole to be void. In his submission the Tribunal, fell in error in declaring the election to be void as a whole and thus the impugned order calls for removal through judicial review.
3. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. Upon the facts of the case the argument is much of the tangent. The failure to submit the expenditure statement is obviously a post election event, which could not have any bearing on the result of the election. The commission of corrupt practice envisaged by Rule 73(7) is obvious. Even if the Tribunal was wrong in declaring the election as a whole to be void instead of declaring the petitioner's election to be void, we would not like to intervene in the matter, in exercise of writ jurisdiction which is A essentially discretionary and more so for the reason that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner rather declaring of the election as a whole to be void is to his advantage. As this petition fails on the second point, the first point has been rightly not canvassed. Dismissed in limine.