DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, J.---The petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned order dated 26-5-1998 passed by the Election Authority, respondent No,1, is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, ultra vires, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, against principle of natural justice and hence of no legal consequence qua the rights of the petitioner as the returned candidate and to set the said order at naught.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith respondent No,3 and three others contested the election for Halqa 11 City Sub-Division District Council Multan (Jhakkarpur).
The petitioner was allotted symbol of 'Chair' while respondent No,3 was allotted symbol of ' Flower'.
The election was held on 20-5-1998 and that there were six Polling Stations for whole of the electoral area of Halqa No,11 and the detail of votes polled in favour of the petitioner and respondent No,3 in as under:- Number of Votes S.No. Polling Station Syed Mushtaq Ali PetitionerMalik Abdullah R.3.
1. Thathi Kohawran 22 91
2. Haji Block 172 200
3. Primary School, Nizamabad09 68
4. Jalalabad 248 335
5. Government Girls Middle School Industrial Estate.134 86
6. Girls Middle School Primary section, Industrial Estate.340 56 TOTAL:- 925 836 and that the petitioner was declared as a returned candidate and a Notification was duly issued to this effect which was followed by the oath taken by the petitioner on 26-5-1998 and that respondent No,3 after commencement of above-mentioned events, that is, issuance of notification of result by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, the oath taking ceremony, moved a petition under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 before Punjab Local Council Election Authority, respondent No,1, basing on some forged result which he had managed and the respondent No,3 alleged in his petition that results of two Polling Stations, that is, Jalalabad and Girls Middle School, Primary Section, Industrial Estate were changed by the Presiding Officers while detail of votes secured by the petitioner and respondent No,3 at other Polling Stations remained intact as per allegation of respondent No,3 and that the Election Authority vide order dated 26-5- 1998 without issuing any notice, irrespective of the fact that whether the Election Authority could take cognizance of the petition after issuance of notification and taking of oath, passed an ex parte order whereby the petition of respondent No,3 was accepted, the declaration and notification impugned therein was set aside and respondent No,3 was declared to be successful in the election and it was further declared by the Election Authority that the Returning Officer shall take further steps as required under the law and this order was passed by two learned Members of Punjab Local Council Election Authority and the Hon'ble Chairman of the Authority was not member of that Bench.
3. Notice was given to the respondents and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were represented by the learned Additional Advocate-General while respondent No,3 by Sh. Zia-ud-Din Ahmad Qamar, Advocate and also filed written statement. The respondent No,3 took the preliminary objections that the writ petition is not maintainable because of the reasons that all the post-election matters are to be challenged through institution of election petitions under Rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 and it has been mentioned in rule 5 of the aforesaid provisions of law that: "5(b)Full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act alleged to have been committed including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties, alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of commission of such practice or act." and in view of the aforesaid provisions the writ petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed and that the writ petition is based on concealment of facts that the respondent No,3 made an application to the Returning Officer/respondent No,2 that the results of Halqa No,11 of the Local Bodies Election of District Council, Multan which was held on 20-5-1998 were changed and on the basis of a letter dated 22-5-1998 communicated to the Secretary, Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, Lahore such a decision has taken and the facts regarding the mala fide of the writ petitioner were transmitted to the Secretary highlighting the illegal acts and that as the answering respondent was deprived of his legitimate rights and the constituency was also deprived of their right that the representative, who was elected by them was deprived of his constitutional rights and other person who was defeated was being favoured by the ruling party and the agencies concerned were playing in their hands and, therefore, the result of the aforesaid Halqa was changed and so in such circumstances the respondent No,1 had the authority to correct the mistake/error and, therefore, there was nothing without jurisdiction and ultimately because of such a letter by the Returning Officer, the result fraudulently manufactured by the writ petitioner was declared to be void and the respondent was declared as a returned candidate and subsequently the petitioner was allowed to take oath and that it is a question of fact which needs to be probed through inquiry/investigation that under what circumstances the result of the answering respondent No,3 was changed and the same can be adjudged after the institution of the election petition by the writ petitioner or before a competent Tribunal and not before this Court and the writ petition requires dismissal and that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a matter which is post election matter and so the writ petition may be dismissed and the fact with regard to the declaration of the petitioner as a successful candidate and later on the changes made by the concerned staff who were purchased by the writ petitioner are being attached for the perusal of this Court and that any ill gotten gains cannot be fortified through the courtesy of the Court and by institution of the writ petition the fraudulent acts done by the writ petitioner cannot be enforced through the Constitutional jurisdiction where the rights of the answering respondent No,3 have been jeopardized unnecessarily and unlawfully and as he was declared a successful candidate but by the change of the result, he was said to have lost the election which is unlawful and illegal and that while exercising extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction the conduct of the parties is always kept in view and the conduct of the writ petitioner is that as has been confirmed by the Returning Officer, after scrutinizing the record and after reaching the conclusion that the result of the writ petitioner was announced fraudulently and defeating the rights of the respondent No,3 and such a conduct cannot prevail and no relief can be granted to such a petitioner and that the gazette notification with regard to the writ petitioner has not been issued by the authorities concerned and in such circumstances he cannot agitate any result and cannot declare himself to be a returned candidate whereas the subsequent notification issued by the competent Authority is intact in favour of respondent No,3 and is to prevail in the eye of law.
4. Arguments have been heard at length.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to section 17(2) of Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the Election Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of respondent No,3; what to talk of passing of the impugned order and section 17(2) is reproduced as under:-- "Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be construed to mean that Election Authority has power to enquire into any matter or pass any order in respect of anything relating to election which can be called in question before the Election Tribunal by an election petition under this Ordinance." and the abovereferred provision makes it clear that the stage at which the respondent No,3 had filed the petition under section 17 before the Election Authority, was the one in which only Election Tribunal was the forum to agitate the grievance of respondent No,3, if any, and not the Election Authority and that the Election Authority had become functus officio after the process of election was complete, the result of election was notified and crown to all, the present petitioner had also taken oath and had started working as Councillor of the said constituency and that the powers conferred on Election Authority under section 17(1) of the Ordinance being in nature of prospective operation for conductiong fair and just election, would not envisage adjudication of election which had been held because jurisdiction of Election Authority stood excluded once election had been held and any matter relating to legality of election already held, as in the case in hand, could be called in question only before the Election Tribunal by filing election petition and that hurry and non-waiting of an event for commencement of action would not confer jurisdiction on Authority which it did not possess or would denude Tribunal who would have exclusive jurisdiction of commencement of action and that the interference of the Election Authority when the result was notified and oath was taken, is totally an action coram non judice and it was the matter and stage relating to the post-election matter and the respondent No,3 had no other remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of Election Tribunal in accordance with Rule 3 of the Election Petition Rules, 1979, if he had any grievance and the person who, under the law Would file election petition before the Tribunal, cannot approach Election Authority to challenge an election matter and that another important legal as well as factual point involved in this case is that some other people had approached the Election Authority after issuance of Notification, in one of the case being Petition No,224/G dated 23-5-1998 titled "Syed Mazhar Hussain v. Returning Officer" vide order dated 23-5- 1998 it was held by the Election Authority itself that. "Result of poll has since been announced by the Presiding Officer/Returning Officer, now the election is challengeable through an Election Tribunal already constituted by the Election Authority." It was also held in view of 1990 CLC 68. "The jurisdiction of Election Authority has ceased to an end." Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there are two Hon'ble Members of the Election Authority which is headed by worthy Chairman, his Lordship Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum and in the abovereferred case of Syed Mazhar Hussain, one of the member who passed this order to the effect that petition before Election Authority was not maintainable and Syed Mazhar Hussain was directed to approach the Election Tribunal, said learned Member was also the Member of the Bench which has passed the impugned order dated 26-5-1998 which is later in date and this instance of passing self-contradictory and discriminatory orders by the Election Authority is sufficient ground to set aside the impugned order dated 26-5-1998 passed by the Election Authority regarding the election in question and that without prejudice to the grounds taken above, the impugned order dated 26- 5-1998 is otherwise against the principles of natural justice as whole of the election has been set aside and the petitioner who was declared as duly returned candidate, was notified as such and was also administered oath, has been unseated and the other candidate who had lost the election has been declared a returned candidate, which is novalty in the impugned order and neither the petitioner was summoned in order to rebut the allegations nor any record was summoned nor the Returning Officer and the Presiding Officers were summoned and though all this exercise was to be taken by the Election Tribunal, which was the only forum available to respondent No,3, even then all the exercise made by the Bench of the Election Authority while passing the impugned order is mockery upon justice and speaks volumes itself and that the impugned order is of such a nature whereby a returned candidate has been declared unreturned and a person who had forged the results, has been declared as returned and the petitioner who had started working as a Councillor of the Constituency has been declared unsuccessful mere on the allegations while the matter was required to be thrashed after adducing evidence by the parties concerned before the Election Tribunal and that the tenor of the impugned order itself shows that it is an order which is untenable in the eyes of law and merits to be set at naught as being totally illegal, without jurisdcition without lawful authority and the Election Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition or to pass the impugned order and that too in sheer disregard to the maxim "audi alteram partem", and that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and the majority of voters of the electoral area who had voted him, which led to the success of the petitioner have been defranchised by applying doctrine of 'thrown away votes' and it is right of everybody that he should be dealt with in accordance with law and be given an opportunity to meet with the allegations and for this purpose the Election Authority has constituted the Election Tribunal where the matters are/were to be thrashed by giving full opportunities to all the contesting parties; while in the case in hand whole of the scheme of law has been nullified by the illegal order of Election Authority which itself in other cases had refused to exercise jurisdiction holding that the Election Tribunal having been constituted, the Election Authority cannot take cognizance of the matter and there was no justification for the Election Authority to pass inconsistent order dated 26-5-1998, impugned herein, wherein inconsistent view has been taken which is neither appreciable on facts nor in law and provision of section 17(2) of the Ordinance is also attracted in this case which was already followed in the earlier case of Syed Mazhar Hussain by the Election Authority but the same has totally been brushed aside and violated by the Election Authority in the present case.
6. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 has argued that the provisions of section 17 of Local Council Ordinance, 1979 have been misconstrued and the writ petitioner can move to the Election Tribunal if he is aggrieved of any illegality of any authority so, therefore, such an order passed by the Election Authority because of corrupt attitude of the writ petitioner cannot be assailed and that any building constructed on a weak and fake foundations is to fall down on the ground, whatsoever concrete it should be and the basis of the result of the election of the writ petitioner are unwarranted under the law and the same are based on fraud committed by the writ petitioner and so, therefore, the ill-gotten gains cannot be fortified by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition requires dismissal and that the Election Authority is to conduct fair and just election but at the time the writ petitioner has not liked the attitude of the Election Authority that the order passed in accordance with just and fair election and the result which was examined by the Returning Officer and which was found to be illegal and altered one, the order was passed on the basis of the letter communicated by the Returning Officer to the Secretary and that the action taken by the Election Authority in view of the clear provisions of section 17, are correct and because of the conduct of the writ petitioner, he cannot agitate the order passed by the Election Authority and the Returning Officer and the application of the petitioner which was to declare the result of the election of Halqa No,11 and on which the Returning 'Officer, District Council Multan forwarded the same with his comments and that the answering respondent is not aware of Petition No,224-G dated 23-5-1998 moved by Syed Mazhar Hussain before the Election Authority and that it is never binding that two other Members of the Election Authority cannot adjudicate upon the matter and that the jurisdiction exercised by the Members of the Election Authority is in accordance with law and that the writ petitioner wanted that on the basis of fraudulent changed result he should be treated as a returned candidate which is never the spirit of law and now if at all in view of the writ petitioner any illegal order has been passed by the Election Authority, the same can be challenged before the Election Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and that any person, even if he has started working, can be stopped if it is found as per record, that the result was forged so, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot challenge the order as a matter of right. The controversy is with regard to the factual inquiry and the same cannot be conducted by this Court in writ jurisdiction and the copies of the results which were given to the answering respondent No,3 at the polling station, have been appended for reference whereas the changed result do not have the signatures of the Presiding Officer as during the way when the election record was being transmitted back to the Returning Officer, such an alterations were mala fidely made and that as respondent No,3 was declared to be successful after close of the polling and as per result giving and signed by the Presiding Officer has been appended and later on due to mal-practice such a result declaring the writ petitioner successful was fabricated and as per the manufacturing of such a result, the bad designs and the mala fide acts of the writ petitioner was ostensibly crowned with success and was declared a returned candidate and the election result so declared was illegal, unlawful and had no substance in the eye of law and that the petitioner has no alternate remedy by way of institution of the election petition before the competent Tribunal and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in the eye of law.
7. First of all we take the question of maintainability of the present writ petition. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 has referred to Rules 3 and 5 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Petition Rule, 1979. Rules 3 deals with the manner of filing an election petition while Rule 5 deals with the contents of petition. For ready reference those are reproduced here under:- "3. Manner of filing an election petition.--(1) An election petition shall be presented within thirty days next after the publication of the result in the official gazette; ' Provided that where a petition or complaint lodged with the Election Authority has abated under subsection (3) of section 17 of the Ordinance, the period for which such petition or complaint remained pending with the Election Authority, shall be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an election petition.
(2) An election petition shall be presented to the Tribunal by a candidate (hereinafter called a petitioner) and shall be deemed to have been presented- (a)When it is delivered to the Tribunal by the petitioner or his authorised agent; or (b)When sent by registered post to the Tribunal.
(3) An election petition sent by registered post shall be deemed to have been received in time'in the office of the Tribunal if it was posted within the time mentioned in sub-rule(1).
(4)A petition under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by a receipts showing that the petitioner has deposited a sum of rupees five hundred in any branch of the National Bank of Pakistan in favour of the Election Authority as security for the costs of the petition.
(5)At any time during the trial of the election petition, the Tribunal may call upon the petitioner to deposit an additional amount as security and the additional amount so required shall be deposited by the petitioner in the same manner as the original deposit. The Tribunal shall refund the balance of the deposit after deducting the costs awarded, if any."
"5. Contents of Petition.---(1) Every Petition shall contain--- (a)a precise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b)full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of the commission of such practice or act; and (c)the relief claimed by the petitioner.
(2) A petitioner may claim as relief of the following declarations, namely:- (a)that the election of the returned candidate is void; (b)that the election of the returned candidate is void and that the petitioner or some other person has been duly elected; or (c)that the election as a whole is void.
(3) Every election petition and every Schedule or Annexure to the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) for the verification of pleadings."
8. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 that all the post-election matters are to be challenged through institution of election petitions goes against him because admittedly the election was held on 20-5-1998 and was notified on 22-5-1998 vide Notification No,377/PA in pursuance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 and after the notification, that is, publication of result in the official Gazette on 22-5-1998 an election petition could have been presented to the Tribunal and the Election Authority had become functus officio.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has relied upon Ali Ahmed v. The Election Authority Punjab Local Government and 2 others (PLD 1983 Lah. 488) and Khan Shahzada v. Maulvi Fazal Rabi and 3 others (1983 SCMR 125) but both the precedents are of no help to him.
10.In the case of Ali Ahmed (PLD 1983 Lah. 488) the Chairman of a Municipal Committee had tendered resignation but before the meeting for passing a resolution to accept the said resignation was held, the Chairman had withdrew his resignation. The committee passed the resolution accepting resolution and sent it to the Election Authority for issuing of notification. The Chairman also moved the Election Authority saying that he had withdrawn his resignation. The Election Authority called for a report and the report was in favour of the Chairman and consequently the Election Authority sent a memo. declaring that the Chairman continue to be the Chairman of the said Municipal Committee. The said memo. was challenged by one of the members of the Municipal Committee by way of a Constitutional petition in which the observation made was that the Election Authority can see before issuing a notification as to whether there was in fact on election/resignation or removal and the writ petition was dismissed.
11.There is no cavil with the finding given in the said case but in the present case the matter does not fall under section 34 of the Ordinance and falls under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979) which reads as under:--- "17. Election Authority to ensure fair elections, etc.---(1) The Election Authority may issue such instructions and exercise such powers including the power to review an order passed by an officer under the Ordinance or the rules, and make such consequential order as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring that an election is conducted justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules.
(2)Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be construed to mean that the Election Authority has power to enquire into any matter or pass any order in respect of anything relating to an election which can be called in question before an Election Tribunal by an election petition under this Ordinance.
(3)Any petition or complaint referred to in subsection (2) and pending with the Election Authority on the date of the commencement of the Punjab Local Government (Third Amendment)
Ordinance, 1979 shall be deemed to have abated.
(4)Notwithstanding the abatement of the petition or complaint under subsection (1) the Election Tribunal shall not be debarred from taking into consideration the matter agitated therein."
The principle remains the same that before announcement of the result, the Election Authority has got all the powers under subsection (1) of section 17 of the Ordinance for ensuring that election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules. This is a stage prior to the announcement of the result by the Presiding Officer and not after it has been announced. Once the result is announced by the Presiding Officer, subsection (2) of section 17 of the Ordinance comes into play and the power lies with the Election Tribunal to inquire into the matter in respect of anything relating to the election by means of an election petition.
12.In the present case, the result of election of Electoral Unit No,11, Zila Council Multan was admittedly announced on 20-5-1998 that is five days before moving the Election Authority whereas at that time the proper forum was the Election Tribunal and not the Election Authority.
13.In the case of Khan Shahzada v. Molvi Fazal Rabbi and 3 others (1983 SCMR 125) the name of the successful candidate was notified and thereafter the matter was challenged by way of an Election Petition and the appellant sought to challenge the legality of order of the Election Tribunal in writ petition which was dismissed and the matter was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan contending that the Election Petition was not maintainable and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed: ..the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order." The Hon'ble Supreme Court addedly observed:--- "the question of the validity of the ballot papers raised by the appellant lay within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal and stands finally disposed of."
With the above observations the appeal of the appellant in the said case was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court.
14.The matter was thoroughly thrashed in the case of Muhammad Tufail v. Punjab Local Council Election Authority through its Secretary and others 1990 CLC 68 and also in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Punjab Election Authority and others (1990 CLC 1551 Lahore) in which it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court as under:--- "What is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Election Authority is anything relating to an election which can be challenged by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal; and not necessarily straightaway. The test, therefore, is whether the matter raised before the learned Election Authority was a matter relating to an election petition. In other words, in view of the language of section 17(2), the question that must be asked is whether the aggrieved person could call in question the election before the Election Tribunal by means of an election petition. It is not denied that if the process had proceeded in due course and notification of the result on the basis of 'return of the election' had been issued and the Election Authority had not intervened under section 17(1) of the Ordinance, the affected person could have challenged the election before the Election Tribunal through an election petition. This is indisputable as well. Therefore, invocation or exercise of power under section 17(1) of the Ordinance cannot have the effect of nullifying or stultifying the statutory provision under section 17(2) which had expressly excluded the operation of section 17(1) and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Election Tribunal."
15. The learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has next contended that the Election Authority had exhaustive power to show honesty, impartiality and fairness and that when fraud and forgery was brought to the notice of the authority, it has acted with lawful authority to set it aside to discharge its function. There is no cavil with the reposition that the Election Authority possessed exhaustive power to ensure impartiality, honesty and fairness but this power is available while the elections were being conducted. The moment the elections were over the Election Authority becomes functus officio and in the above two authorities the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Emmanul Masih v. The Punjab Local Council Election Authority and others (1985 SCMR 729) has also been referred to in which it was observed:--- "The purpose of the entire exercise provided by the Election Laws beginning with the preparation of the Election Rolls and ending with the announcement of Election results is to hold elections in order to enable the voters to choose their representatives for the purpose of carrying out the Local Bodies or to the Provincial or Central Legislatives, as the case may be. This (purpose) constitutes the very foundation of the democratic process, as envisaged at present. All the measures in the election laws and Rules framed thereunder are directed towards this purpose and every effort has been made (by the Legislature) to ensure that nothing should impede the holding of elections. The law provides that it is only after the elections are over, that they can be challenged in a forum specifically provided by the said law itself and that too only on the grounds enumerated in the relevant rules. All provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the rules framed thereunder must, therefore, be read in the light of this all-pervading intention. It is indeed envisaged that the conduct of elections should be fair and honest and that is why the Election Authority has been given vast powers under section 17(1) of the Ordinance for ensuring that dishonest, unjust or unfair means are not used during the conduct of the election. As held by this Court in the case of Malik Muhammad Aslam (1982 SCMR 108), the Election Authority 'cannot be expected to stand by as an idle spectator' and can interfere in the process of elections whenever any dishonesty, illegality or malpractice etc. are brought to the notice during the conduct of the elections. The power of the Election Authority under section 17(1), however, comes to an end after the result of the election is announced (emphasis is ours); herein italics and from then onwards it is only the Election Tribunals set up under section 25 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979 which, when moved by an appropriate person, can go into the question of the validity of the election of any particular person from electoral Unit and has the power to declare it void. This division of powers to deal with pre and post election, complaints arose from the addition of three more subsections, i,e,, subsections (2), (3) and (4) which were added to section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, by Ordinance XII of 1979. These have already been reproduced in paragraph No,7 above. The reason is adding these subsections and the consequent division of powers is obvious. It would be recalled that the (first) elections to the Local Bodies under Ordinance XII of 1979 took place on 25-9-1979, while these subsections were added to section 17 of the Ordinance (through the 3rd Amendment), on 29-10-1979, i,e,, about a month after the elections were over. The successful candidates had been notified 20 days earlier, on 9-10-1979 and it appears, that within those 20 days after the results were announced, a number of aggrieved persons i,e,, the defeated candidates or their party men, had filed complaints before the Election Authority under section 17(1) of the Ordinance, instead of resorting to the Election Tribunals through Election Petitions. Apparently it was to rectify this situation that the abovenoted provisions i,e,, subsections (2), (3) and (4) were added to section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979). This view is reinforced by the provision of the newly-added subsection (3) of section 17 which lays down that any complaint under subsection (1) of section 17 pending before the Election Authority on the date of the commencement of Ordinance XII of 1979 (i,e,, on 29-10-1979) shall be deemed to have abated. The next result of this amendment was that while the Election Authority was given extensive power to ensure impartiality, honesty and fairness while the elections were being conducted, it (i,e,, Election Authority), became functus officio after the elections were over, and the validity of the elections could then be challenged by aggrieved persons only to election petitions on grounds which during the pre-election period could be made the basis of complaint to the Election Authority under section 17(1)."
16. From the above discussion it is clear that the impugned order, dated 26-5-1998 passed by the Election Authority was without lawful authority and the writ petition is, therefore, maintainable under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is, therefore, declared that the impugned order, dated 26-5-1998 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the respondent No,3 may seek his remedy before the Election Tribunal in accordance with law, if so advised. No order is made as to the costs.