' By this order I propose to dispose of Miscellaneous Application No,2181 of 1999 filed under section 151, C.P.C. Seeking suspension of Notification bearing No,4-18/98 (result)/BLCEA, dated Quetta, the 19th April, 1999, whereby respondents Nos.3 to 10 were declared returned as successful candidates of the seats of Special Interest Group of Local Councils in District Bolan, Nasirabad Division and to say election of Chairman of District Council Bolan about to be held before 25-7-1999.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the number of non-Muslim seats were increased by the Government of Balochistan and in respect of District Notification Bolan the number of non-Muslim seats was refixed as 3 vide Notification No, II(LG/E)1(2)/98/1828-1919, dated Quetta, the 1st March, 1999, whereas the Balochistan Local Council Election Authority had earlier issued Notification bearing No,8-210/98(BELEA) VOL-II. Dated Quetta, the 25th January, 1999 in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of Balochistan Local Government (Elections) Rules, 1983, but the respondent No,2 i,e, Returning Officer did not gives any public notice as equired under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of said Rules. He has submitted that the said notification of 1st March, 1999 was with immediate effect and the Balochistan Local Councils Authority was required again to issue notification under sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 to the said Rules when the seats were re-fixed. He has contended that no election in respect of minority seats was conducted on 21-3-1999. He has next argued that the composition of District Council Bolan was not complete as per provision contained in section 12(1)(i) as there was no non-Muslim Members, therefore, the election in respect of Special Interest Group of Local Council was not in a prescribed manner and was in violation of Law and Rules. Learned Counsel has relied upon the authorities reported in 1994 SCMR page 1299, PLD 1993 Quetta page 24, PLD 1998 Karachi page 11 and PLD 1972 Supreme Court page 279.
3. On the other hand, learned Advocate-General representing the State has resisted this application by contending that a Consititutional petition (C.P.No,281 of 1999) which had been filed by one Hazari La, containing almost the same prayer but this petition was not pressed by the same learned counsel which was accordingly dismissed by this Court on 3-6-1999. It is an admitted position that respondents who have been declared as returned successful candidates vide Notification No,4-18/98 (result) (BLCEA) dated Quetta, the 30th June, 1999 took oath on 2nd July, 1999, did not challenge order of Balochistan Local Council Authority Quetta bearing No,4-27/99 (BLCEA), dated Quetta the 2nd June, 1999, but rather accepted the same and participated in the Election. Learned Law Officer has also submitted that this Honourable High Court have already issued direction regarding schedule of the Chairman Local Councils. Learned Law Officer representing the State has also submitted that alternate remedy by presenting Election Petition to the Election Tribunal would be available to the aggrieved persons. It has been contended that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the instant case.
4. After taking into consideration the relevant Rules and hearing arguments of learned counsel prima facie, it can be concluded that the official respondents had not violated any law of procedure or acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction as to warrant the issue of temporary injunction and restrain the respondents from holding election of Chairman of Local Council to be held on 21-7-1999. The Courts in exercise of their inherent power have seldom interfered with the carrying out of such functions and public duties of the Public Authorities. No ground for grant of stay has been made out and a stay order in the circumstances of the case is likely to create complications and the balance of convenience lies in not issuing it. I am also fortified in my view by an authority reported in. PLD 1966 (W.P) Lahore 335. The observations made in the said authority at para. No,3 are note-worthy which is reproduced below for the sake of facility:-- - "In the first place, we have reason to believe that making of interim order would tantamount to interfering with, the carrying out of functions and public duties, of the public authorities and would be otherwise, harmful to the public interest. The elections of the Chairman of the Union Committee are held after some preparations which have been completed. In this case the election is take place only the 4th day from hence, and if an interference is made at this final stage, of the forthcoming elections, that will jeopardize the whole election machinery and result in great complications. Moreover, it is to be understood that it is not the election in this particular Constituency, but all over West Pakistan Elections of Chairman are taking place on the 18th instant.
A stay order in these circumstances is likely to create complications, and the balance of convenience lies in not issuing it. On one hand is the personal grievance of the present petitioner, while on other side, is the question of public good and of public administration. The elections are taking place to put the machinery of Basic Democracies, Union Councils, Union Committees and Town Committees into working. A machinery of public administration cannot be brought to a standstill simply for the sake of one individual. It was held in In re: T. Balaji Rao Naidu Garu (AIR 1933 Mad. 103) By Relilly, J. That through a candidate for election to a Local Board like anyone else has a right to pursue his legal remedies, whatever they may be save in exceptional circumstances it is an abuse for a candidate who for some reasons is shut out, to make his pursuit of his remedies in the Civil Courts a weapon for dislocating the electoral machinery and stopping an election, and that an order for injunction for that purpose should not ordinarily be granted.'
' Similarly, in Raja Maheshwar Dayal Seth v. Yuvraj Dutta Singh it was held that an injunction could not be granted as the balance of inconvenience resulting from postponing of the election would be greater than inconvenience resulting from the election being held on the fixed date. It was further held therein that the contention that if temporary injunction was not issued, the suit would become infructuous, was not sufficient in itself to warrant the issue of a temporary injunction."
5. For the above reasons I find no merits in this application for stay which is accordingly dismissed.