' Article The petition under 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the election of Muhammad Aslam, respondent No, 2 herein, from Union Council No,20 Ward No, 5 Jabboka, Tehsil and District Okara, on the ground that respondent No,2 being a Contractor in the. Local Council was disqualified to contest elections under section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (Punjab Ordinance VI of 1979) (hereinafter called the Ordinance).
2. Mr. M.D. Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the application dated 18- 6-1991 submitted by respondent No,2 to the Government and Rural Engineer, Local Goral Development District Okara, wherein he conceded to be a Contractor of the Local Government Department and sought permission to deposit the licence fee for the year 1991-92.
3. The respondent No,2, present in Court, did not dispute the contents of the application, which may be reproduced for ready reference:- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No,2 was disqualified to contest the elections, in that, his case is covered under the proviso to clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 21(f) of the Ordinance, which reads thus:-- "21. Disqualification of candidates and membeRs,--(1) A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of a local council--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: ' Provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable to--
(1) A person who has, whether by himself or by any person in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account, any share of interest in--
(a) a contract for the supply of goods to, or the execution of any work of, the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or an autonomous body in which such a Government has a controlling share or interest or a Local authority other than the one in which that person is a candidate for election;
(b) the performance of any service undertaken by any such Government, autonomous body or local authority."
5. Clearly the case of respondent No:2 is covered by the proviso to clause (f), in that, he was not a Contractor for the supply of goods and has not either by himself or by any person in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account has any share or interest in a contract for the supply of goods to or the execution of any work of Union Council Jaboka in which he was a candidate for election and was declared successful as such. The provisions of section 21(1)(f) being in the nature of a penal clause, must be strictly construed and, in order to disqualify respondent No,2, there must be some positive evidence on record to show that he did have a subsisting share or interest in the performance of any contract on the nomination day with Union Council Jaboka. No such material is available on record in this regard nor any such allegation has been made in the writ petition that respondent No,2 was a Contractor of the said Union Council at the relevant time and, in the absence thereof, it cannot be held that respondent No,2 was disqualified to be a candidate or a member of said Union Council from which he was declared successful. Refer Khan Muhammad Yousuf Khan Khattak v. S.M. Ayub and others (PLD 1973 SC 160) and Junaid Ahmad Soomro v. Haji Mehboob Ali Bhayo and others (PLD 1986 SC 698) wherein it was held that the provisions of penal statute entitling forfeiture and deprivation of valuable rights of property and franchise have to be very strictly construed and in the case of doubt the benefit must go to the person against whom they are sought to be invoked. It was also held, "it will have to be seen in each case whether the person sought to be disqualified did have a subsisting share or interest in the performance of any contract on the nomination day with the Government" (Union Council Jaboka in the instant easel (the expression in the parenthesis is mine; herein underlined).
' In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition, which is hererby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.