' MIJNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 20-6-2001 of the Lahore High Court through which respondents have been allowed to contest elections of the posts of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council, No,135. Tehsil Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura.
2. The respondents are admittedly non-Muslims belonging to minority group. They filed nomination papers to contest election of the posts of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No,135. Tehsil Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura. The petitioners did not raise objection against nomination papers of the respondents but the Returning Officer on his own rejected their nomination papers on the ground that the population of non-Muslims in the local area concerned did not exceed the Muslim population therefore they could not contest the election by non-Muslim to the posts of Nazim and Naib Nazim of the Union Council. This was through order, dated 5-6-2001. They filed appeal against this order before the District Returning Officer which was dismissed on 7-6-2001.
The Constitutional Petition filed by them has been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 20-6-2001 on the basis of judgment passed in Writ Petition No,9085 of 2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that seats for minority have been allocated under section 8 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 which is as under:-- "8. Union Councils.---There shall be twenty-one members of the Union Council as follows:
(a) twelve seats for Muslim, including four seat reserved for women,
(b) six seats reserved for peasants and workers, including two seats for women to represent peasants and workers,
(c) save as otherwise provided, one seat reserved for minority communities,
(d) Union Nazim,
(e) Naib Union Nazim.
4. He further submitted that under section 9 thereof, the elections for the Special Minority Seat were to be regulated by the Government separately through circulars. He submitted that total population of the Union Council in question is admittedly 21985 out of which 14575 are Muslims and 7410 are non-Muslims. Out of this population there are 7521 Mulsim voters whereas non-Muslim voters are 4516. He submitted that non-Muslim population is more than 10 per cent. Of the total population therefore, one seat was reserved for minority in clause (c) of section 8 ibid. His arguments that if the respondents are allowed to contest election to the post of Nazim and Naib Nazim which are part of the total seats of the Union Council concerned i.e, 21, non-Muslims would get more than one seat allocated to them under clause (c) of section 8 of the said Ordinance.
Besides he apprehended that Muslims may not be asked to cast votes in favour of Muslim candidate only and non-Muslims for non-Muslim candidates for these seats.
5. In our considered view the interpretation of the relevant provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Ordinance as made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of which nomination papers of respondents Nos.9 and 10 were rejected, is based on the misreading of said provisions of law and is not sustainable.
' A bare reading of section 8 of the said Ordinance reveals that total seats of Union Council concerned are fixed at 21 the bifurcation of which has been given as follows:--
(a) twleve seats for Muslims;
(b) six seats for peasants and workers;
(c) one seat for minority community.
' In addition to these 19 seats, there are two seats against which Nazim and Naib Nazim are to be elected through direct votes.
It is clear from the scheme of section that against the seats reserved for Muslims, only Muslims would contest and only Muslim voters would cast their votes qua the elections of the said seats whereas the seats reserved for minority, election would be contested by a candidate from the said class only and only non-Muslim voters would cast votes for the said seats. As regards other seats of peasants/workers and Nazim and Naib Nazim, it is not provided that non-Muslim was disqualified to contest election against these seats, therefore, it is clear that against all these seats, the election could be contested by any person irrespective of his religion and for the election of these seats, all the voters whether Muslim or non-Muslim would cast votes jointly, therefore, apprehension that for election of Nazim and Naib Nazim, the Muslim community may not be bound down to cast votes in favour of non-Muslim panel only and non-Muslim in favour of non-Muslim panel is baseless. All the voters irrespective of their religion would jointly cast votes in favour of any of the contesting panels.
' For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations and leave refused.