IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRV, J. -- The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were elected as Councillor Zila Council, Rawalpindi. The respondent No. 1 was desirous of contesting for the post of Vice Chairman.
The election was held on 8th of February, 1999 but he was informed that his nomination has been withdrawn. Thereafter the election was held and the petitioner was declared elected. The respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 before the respondent No. 2. The same came up for limine hearing when notices were issued to the respondents and meanwhile publication of notification of election of the petitioner was stayed. The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition and prayed that the order dated 10th of February, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition came up for limine hearing on 22.2.1999 when it was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents who have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the declaration of the result respondent No. 2 became functus officio, therefore, has no jurisdiction of staying the issuance of notification of election of the petitioner. In this behalf reference is made to Sections 17 and 23 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Emmanual Masih v. The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and others (1985 SCM R 729).
3. On the other hand, Rana Muhammad Arshad, Advocate, argued that as per Section 17 of Ordinance, 1979, it is a sacred duty of respondent No. 2 to hold fair, impartial and just elections. It is added that the petitioner complained that in fact the election for the post of Vice Chairman was no election in the eye of law, therefore, the petition under Section 17 was competent and rightly pending decision of the main petition.
4. Rana Muhammad Arif, learned Addl. A.G. Argued that writ petition has been directed against the interim order, therefore, not competent and the petitioner should raise all the objections before the respondent No. 2 and get a decision thereon.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. It is only an interim order, therefore writ petition is not competent. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs.