' Zahid Mubariz who is petitioner before this Court obtained a lease to collect fee on sale of cattle within the limits of Zila Council, Chakwal in a Cattle Market to be held in Tchsil Talagang for a period of one year w,e,f, 30-6-1991 to 29-6-1992. Work order was issued to the petitioner vide Letter No,788/I-A/2cc--13-6-1991 Exh.P1. During the subsistence of the lease period, the petitioner contested election as a Member of Zila Council Chakwal from Halqa No,Z-C 25 (Lawa) held on 28- 12-1991. The contest was between the petitioner and Subedar Noor Khan respondent No,2. The petitioner succeeded and was notified as an elected member of Zila Council. Aggrieved of his election respondent No,2 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal Chakwal on the ground that the petitioner being a lessee of the Zila Council is disqualified to contest the election as per provisions of Section 21 (1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The election petition was contested and accepted by the learned Election Tribunal, Chakwal vide order dated 15-2-1993. Election of the petitioner has been set aside and it has been directed that the fresh election shall take place. Order dated 15-2-1992 has been challenged by the petitioner through this Constitutional petition.
2. M/s. Maulvi Anwarul Haq Advocate and Sohail Nasir Advocate have appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the respondent No,2 the contesting respondent had raised an objection that the order passed by the Election Tribunal is not lawful inasmuch as the contest is betwen the petitioner and the respondent No,2 and hence fresh election could not have been directed and to be held it is the respondent No,2 who is entitled to be declared as elected.
Adjournment however, was sought to make a statement with regard to the pressing or relinquishment of the aforementioned plea. Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No,2 today and has made a statement That respondent No,2 does not press his plea of being declared as elected, accepts the impugned order as valid and lawful and prays that writ petition may be decided on its merits in relation to the disqualification of the petitioner alone. Consequently the arguments have been heard.
3. Maulvi Anwarul Haq Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although it is not denied that the petitioner was a lessee for collection of fee on sale of cattle within the limits of Zila Council, Chakwal in a Cattle Market at Tchsil Talagang, at the time when he filed his nomination paper and contested the election yet the learned Election Tribunal has not rendered any finding as to whether the petitioner had any interest in the affairs of the Zila Council, therefore, without recording of finding to that effect impugned order could not have been passed and, hence, is without a lawful authority. Learned counsel has further contended that merely because the petitioner was a contractor/lessee, he is not disqualified to contest under the provision of Section 21
(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance,1979. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Chiragh Din and Returing Officer, Kasur 1981 CLC 1733 a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
4. As against the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 21 (1) (f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as well as the provisions of Article 10 (2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 and has argued that as the petitioner is admittedly a lessee and was collecting the fee on sale of cattle which work is the prerogative of the Zila Council, he was interested in the execution of a work to be done by the Zila Council and had pecuniary interest in the affairs of the Local Council at the time of election therefore, has validly been held disqualified to contest the election and his election has been rightly set aside by the Election Tribunal.
4-A..I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admittedly the petitioner was a lessee and was collecting fee on the sale of cattle in a Cattle Market within the limits of Zila Council at the time when he filed his nomination papers to contest the election and was declared elected therein. For the purposes of reference the relevant provisions of Section 21 (1) (I) as well as Article 10 (2) (8) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 are reproduced as under: Section 21(1)(f).: ' A person shall be disqualified to be a candidate or a member of local council:-
(f) 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;
(1) A person who has whether by himself or by any person in trust for him or for his benefit or his account any share or 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.
Article 10 (2) (8): ' Qualifications and disqualifications for membership of parliament.---- (1)
(2) A person shall be disqualfied from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a membr, of Parliament---
(a) XXX XXX XXX XXX (b)
(1) .
(2) .
8. If he, whether by himself or by any person or body of persons in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account or as a member of a Hindu undivided family, has any share or interest in a contract, not being a contract between a Cooperative Society and Government, for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of . Any contract or the performance of any service undertaken by Government;'
' A bare perusal of the provisions of section 21 (1) (f) read with clauses (a) and (b) to para. 1 of the provision of clause (f) as well as Article 10 (2) (8), it stands established that as the petitioner is interested in the execution of the work of the Zila Council, Chakwal i,e, the collection of fee on sale of cattle and has a personal interest therein, he is disqualified to contest the election as a Member of the same Local Council. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts inasmush as clause (a), paragraph 1 to the proviso of clause (f) has not been interpreted in the judgment and moreso the judgment was rendered in a petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto wherein the disqualification could have been shed off and the learned Single Judge has held that the election petition shall be the proper remedy. In the case in hand, the potitioner has been declared as disqualified by an election tribunal which is a Court of competent jurisdiction and in this Constitutional petition the legality and wires of that order has to be seen. Hence law declared in the cited case is not attracted in this case.
6. Resultantly, I see no reason of differ with the view taken by the Election Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petition having no force is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.