' MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.---The dispute in this Constitution petition relates to delimitation of Electoral Units No,3, 4 and 5 of Union Council, Aminabad, Tehsil Liaquatpur District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. The facts as given in the petition are; that on 1-10-1991 preliminary list of delimitation of Electoral Units of Union Council Aminabad was published by the Delimitation Officer on 1-10-1991. The petitioner on 5-10-1991 submitted objections with respect to delimitation in respect of all Electoral Units alleging therein that delimitation of Units was contrary to the principle of equality of population and contiguity as enjoined under section 14 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979). The objections of the petitioner with respect to Wards No,1 and 2 were negatived by the Delimitation Officer but accepted with regard to the delimitation of Wards No, 3, 4 and 5 and resultantly the Delimitation Officer prepared the proposal in the light of objections of the petitioner and sent them to the appellate authority who by order dated 12-10-1991 rejected the recommendation of the Delimitation Officer and upheld the delimitation shown in preliminary proposal. It was held by the appellate authority that preliminary proposal was in accordance with the previous delimitation and as such needed no interference.
3. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred application under sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, before the election authority who dismissed the same by order dated 30-10-1991. The preliminary proposal and the order of election authority dated 30-10-1991 are the subject-matter of challenge in this Constitution petition.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that according to delimitation the population of Wards No,3, 4 and 5 was 717, 1634 and 1495 respectively. On the face of it, this was contrary to the principle of equality of population.
5. It was next submitted that Wards No,3, 4 and 5 were delimited in defiance of the principle of contiguity that Ward No,3 had blocks of population which were not connected with each other.
Worst was the position of Ward No,4. In order to demonstrate the contraventions of the principle of contiguity, reference was made to map of delimitation, Annexure-A.
6. The Deputy Commissioner/appellate authority submitted written reply wherein the factual contents of paras. No,3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the petition were admitted. It is pertinent to note that these paragraphs related to factual allegations that the delimitation of Wards No, 3, 4 and 5 was violative of the principle of contiguity. Haji Saifullah, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of newly-impleaded respondents in C.M. No,4/91 strenuously supported the impugned delimitation. It was stated by him that the data of preliminary proposal given by Delimitation Officer was totally incorrect. According to him the population of Ward No,1 was 1012 while the population of Wards No,2, 3, 4, and 5 was 1020, 1050, 1250 and 1200 respectively. The Delimitation Officer under extraneous pressure had agreed with the proposal of the petitioner and furnished a wrong data before the appellate authority as well as before the election authority. Elaborating his contentions further he stated that Election Authority had taken into consideration the record of the Union Council and had come to the conclusion that preliminary delimitation proposal was in accord with the principle of equality of population and the principle of contiguity.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No,1, 2, and 3 stated that delimitation was not in consonance with the principle of equality and contiguity. It was however argued that the order of the election authority was final and not open to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find force in the contentions of the petitioner. On facts admitted by the appellate authority, it is clear that Wards No,3, 4 and 5 were delimited in contravention of the principle of equality and contiguity. Thus the delimitation of Wards No,3, 4 and 5 was manifestly in breach of subsection A (2) of Section 14 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Election Authority had not adverted to this question, as such the order passed by the appellate authority as well as by the Election Authority cannot be sustained.
9. It is a settled principle of law that wherever this Court finds order by any Tribunal, Court or Authority as without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or in manifest breach of some law, this Court has a jurisdiction to come to the help of the petitioner and set aside such order in Constitutional jurisdiction. Reference be made to Rahim Shah v. The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and another (PLD 1973 SC 24), Shah Jehan Khan v. The Chairman, Punjab Local Council Election Authority, Lahore and 3 others (1980 CLC 544) and Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1991 SC 531).
10. In the light of foregoing discussion, we accept this petition, set aside the orders of the Election Authority as well as the Appellate Authority to the extent of delimitation of Wards No,3, 4 and 5 and remit the case to the Appellate Authority for deciding the question of delimitation of Wards No,3, 4, and 5 afresh within a week of this order, after hearing both the parties and .In consonance with law.