MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- The petitioner and respondent No.1 were candidates from Electoral Unit No. 88 for councillorship of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation. The petitioner was declared successful and his election has been challenged by respondent No.1 by filing an election petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979, in which respondent No.1 has claimed multifarious reliefs, like re- count of ballot papers, declaration of the election of the petitioner as void and also the election as a whole be declared as void.
2. An objection was raised by the petitioner by filing an application under rule 9 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 that the election petition was not maintainable in view of rule 5(2) of the said Rules, according to which only one relief can be claimed by the petitioner in the election petition. This application was, however, rejected by the learned Additional District Judge/Election Tribunal on 24.3.1992.
3. Respondent No.1, instead of challenging that order any further again applied to the Election Tribunal for dismissal of the election petition for violation of rule 3 of the said Rules, which required deposit of security. The application was based upon the premises that as the reliefs claimed by respondent No. 1 are more than one, separate security should have been deposited by him in respect of every relief. This application has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge/Election Tribunal on 18.6.1992. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to rule 5 of the said Rules, in his election petition, respondent No.1 could claim only one relief and by asking for more, he has violated the said rule and as such, his election petition was liable to be dismissed. In the alternative, it was argued that for each relief, respondent No.1 is liable to deposit separate security.
5. An election petition filed by respondent No.1 is still pending adjudication before the Election Tribunal and the orders passed by him on the two applications filed by respondent No.1 do not have the effect of disposing of the whole case. I am not inclined in the exercise of the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in this matter at this stage. The petitioner may, if so advised, challenge the impugned orders alongwith the final order if it goes against him.
6. Even otherwise, prima-facie there appears to be no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as respondent No.1 has asked for more than one reliefs, his petition was liable to be dismissed.
7. Rule 9 is not absolute but is discretionary in nature and even if there is violation of rule 5(2), the Election Tribunal is obliged to dismiss the election petition.
8, As regards the other contention, suffice it to say, that as one election petition has been filed, one security was required to be deposited.
This petition is dismissed in limine.