GUL ZAJUN K1AN1, J.- A brief reference to the salient facts of the case for its decision shall be helpful.
Petitioner was a lady Councillor of Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan. She was elected to the Seat, on 16.1.1992. She resigned from her seat, on 7.9.1992. Her resignation was placed before the House of the Town Committee on 26.9.1992. Members present at the meeting resolved for placing the resignation in a special meeting of the House. Meeting was re-convened for20.10.1992, wherein, resignation tendered by the petitioner was unanimously disapproved.
2. Since the Office of Chairman of Town Committee, Pind Dadah Khan already lay vacant because of its previous incumbent having been deseated on account of a no-confidence motion successfully tabled against him, Election Authority, Punjab notified 7.11.1992 for election to Office of the Chairman of Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan. Thereupon, Sakhawat Hussain Shah, also a local Councillor of Town Committee brought a civil suit, in a load civil Court, against the petitioner for a declaration that she had ceased to be a Member of the Town Committee upon tendering her resignation to it. Petitioner contested the suit. The civil Court initially gave an interim order on 5.11.1992. Later, it confirmed the restraint order for stopping the petitioner from participating in the election to the Office of the Chairman. No reference to the final order of the civil Court passed on the application for temporary injunction was made in the writ petition. Nor a copy of the aforesaid order filed alongwith it, or shown at the hearing of writ petition. However, learned counsel conceded that the stay order was confirmed by the civil Court and was still in operation. It is not known, whether an appeal was preferred the above order in the District Court. Be that as it may, an order passed by the Civil Court putting a restraint on the petitioner for participation in the affairs of the Local Council had attained finality and held the field. The suit in which the aforesaid order was passed was fixed for evidence, on 2.1.1993. Next date of 8r.Aring fixed in it was not available on record.
3. Upon vacating of the Office of the Chairman by the previous incumbent, Malik Ejaz Hussain, Vice- Chairman of the Local Council took over the Office of the acting Chairman. Upon announcement of the date for bedding of election to the Office of the Chairman, Malik Ejaz Hussain brought a devil suit, in the local civil Court, at Find Dadan Khan for a declaration and perpetual injunction to the effect that the election could not held without participation of the petitioner in it. On 28.11.1992, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It is unnecessary to dilate on the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the suit.
4. Petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition No.998 of 1992 at Rawalpindi Bench of the Court for a permission to her to cast her vote in the forthcoming election to the Office of the Chairman of the Town Committee, Find Dadan Khan. Writ Petition came up before my learned brother Falaksher, J., cm 21.12.1992. It was disposed of with the following observations:- "One reconsideration, learned counsel wants to withdraw the petition with permission to file a fresh one in the event of fixation of the date of election to the Office of the Chairman, Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan. The same is accordingly disposed of.
5. By a Notification dated 28.12.1992, Election Authority, Punjab fixed 5.1.1993 as the date for election to the Office of Chairman, Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan. Confronted with the new development, petitioner has again filed a petition in Constitutional jurisdiction for a permission to her for casting her vote in the forthcoming election of the Chairman as a duly elected Councilor.
6. Learned counsel addressed lengthy arguments. He relied upon cases of Mr. A.KFazalul Qauder Choudhury v. Syed Shah Nawaz and others PLD 1966 Supreme Court 105, Rahim Bakhsh v. Chief Election Commissioner and others PLD 1967 Lahore 49, Kamil Noor Khan v. Controlling Authority, Union Committee No. 60, Karachi and 3 others 1971 S.C.MJL29, Municipal Committee, Multan Through its Chairman v. Burmah Shell Storage A Distribution Co. Of Pakistan Ltd. And another PLD 1976 Lahore 726, Malik Meraj Khalid v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Us President, through MJE.0, Lahore Cantt, and another P.L.D. 1988 Lahore 325 and also referred to the Punjab Local Councils (Resignation) Rules, 198L It was argued that pendency of a civil suit and a final order of temporary injunction passed in it was not a bar for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. In support of the view, two cases noticed above were heavily pressed upon by the learned counsel Main burden of die arguments was that since the resignation was not addressed to the Chief Corporation Officer; Chief Officer or the Secretary of the Local Council, therefore, its consequential placement before the House and the result achieved were immaterial. In support of the argument, three cases noticed above were relied upon.
7. Having heard the learned counsel, read the cases and seen the relevant Rules, I have not been able to discover any serious merit in this petition. There is no doubt that the petitioner submitted her resignation from the seat of the Local Council on 7.9.1992. Resignation was addressed to the Chairman of the Town Committee, Find Dadan It was attested by Malik Ejaz Hussain, acting Chairman of the Local Council. Resignation was placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Town Committee held on 26.9.1992. As said above, it was unanimously resolved to place the resignation of the petitioner before a special meeting of the Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan. Eventually, on 20.10.1992, the resignation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the House. On 15.11.1992, petitioner addressed the Chairman of Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan, in writing, stating that she was a full-fledged Member of the House and was entitled to participate in its affairs. This was after 20th October, 1992, when her resignation was not accepted by the House of Town Committee, Pind Dadan Khan. By virtue of Section 30 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, a Chairman; Vice-Chairman or a Member may resign his office by tendering resignation in writing to the local council of which he is the Chairman, Vice- Chairman or Member. Section 34 of the Ordinance required a resignation to be notified. Section 167 of the Ordinance empowered the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Government framed the Punjab Local Councils (Resignation) Rules, 1961. Rules were notified on 24th December, 1981. Rule 2 of the Rules, provides that a Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a Member resigning his Office shall deliver his resignation to the Chief Corporation Officer, Chief Officer or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the local council concerned. In case, above officers were not available, resignation could be delivered to the person next incharge of the Officer of local council concerned. After compliance with formalities provided in Sub- Rule 3 of Rule 2, the resignation was required to be placed before the local council in its next meeting. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 of 1981 Rules, states that the person resigning "shall cease to hold that office from the date the resignation is placed before the local council". Ensuing Rule gave power to withdraw the resignation before it was placed before the local council under Ruies-3. Rule 5 concerned itself with dispatch of information about the resignation. This is all that is contained in the Ordinance and the Rules. A glance at sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 visibly demonstrates that the resignation is effective, the moment, it is placed before the local council. Effectiveness of resignation was dependent upon its mere placement before the local council. It neither required approval nor disapproval by the local council for lending efficacy to it. A natural corollary of the above would be that the petitioner ceased to be a Member of the Town Committee upon placement of her resignation before the local council, if not at its first meeting held on 26.9.1992, then on 20.10.1992, surely. She did not dissolve her resignation prior to its placement before the local council. Later act of expressing a wish to join and participate in the affairs of local council was an inconsequential act. She had already missed the bus and it was too late to cry over a spilt milk. It was true that pendency of a civil suit as aa alternative remedy chosen was not a bar for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court but it was surely an important consideration for the Court to regulate exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Apart from the pendency of a civil suit on the suspect, there was another hurdle for the petitioner to cross-over, and, that was that a order on merits putting a restraint on her to participate in the affairs of council existed against her. The order was appealable, but for reasons best known, either the appeal was not filed, or, if filed, its result was not disclosed. Extraordinary circumstances absent, it may not be a sound exercise of jurisdiction to disregard a final order passed on merits by the civil Court in a suit brought before it. Learned counsel next submitted that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. In absence of the order and the related material for forming a view on it, I shall not hazard an opinion on question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Election to the office of Chairman was scheduled for tomorrow at 11 a.m. Everything is set in gear by the local Authorities. Petitioner herself was not proposing to contest the office of Chairman. The contest is seen among other rivals. She may have been put-forth to play the game for he benefit of either of the rivals. Defeated candidate may have a remedy in the Election Petition, in the event of any illegality in the process of election to the office of Chairman.
Having regard to all that has been said and observed above, I see no ground to interfere with the process of election at the instance of the petitioner. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
However, civil suit shall proceed towards its decision on its own merits.