' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order, dated 11-6-2001 and for declaring the same as illegal, without jurisdiction, void and of no legal effect against the rights of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that elections of Union Council No,152, Tehsil Sargodha were held on 31- 12-2000. Out of 8 Muslim Male Member (General Seats), the petitioner was one of the successful candidates. The result was declared on 4-1-2001. The Gazette Notification was issued on 26-5-2001.
The Provincial Election Commissioner issued letter, dated 29-5-2001 on the basis of which impugned letter, dated 11-6-2001 has been passed by the D.R.O. By which the petitioner has been deprived of his success as a General Councillor and in his place respondent No,4 has been declared as successful candidate of non-Muslim seat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the issuing of the notification, the D.R.O.
Had become functus officio and had no authority to issue the notification, dated 11-6-2001, impugned in this petition. It is further contended that the Provincial Election Commissioner does not figure anywhere in the Punjab Local Councils Ordinance, 2000 and cannot issue any direction. To the D.R.O. For the change of the result even after the notification hence the order, dated 29-5-2001 by the Provincial Election Commissioner is also illegal and unlawful. It is further contended that under section 8 of the Punjab Local Council Ordinance, 2000, 8 seats for General Councillor for Muslims had been reserved and the petitioner has been elected at one of the seats and only one seat has been fixed for minority and on that seat Mst. Nasim Akhtar has been declared as successful Member.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner. Respondents were served and only on behalf of respondent No,4 Mr. Patras Flex, Advocate has filed power of attorney on 21-9-2001. The other private respondents were proceeded ex parte on the last date as in spite of their service they did not appear. The case was fixed for yesterday and nobody entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,4 in spite of the fact that name of respondent No,4 and counsel Mr. Patras Felix, Advocate was duly published in the cause list. Hence he was proceeded ex parte. Hence this Court has opted to decide this petition on merits even in the absence of the respondents. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are supported by the law as Punjab Local Council Government Ordinance, 2000. Section 8 provides that there will be total 21 seats out of which 8 seats have been reserved for the Muslim General Councillors. The petitioner has been elected on one seat out of the 8 seats and had been declared successful by the Returning Officer and in the Gazette Notification; the petitioner's name has been duly notified as one of the successful candidates. Oath was also taken by the petitioner. I have also perused the law of Punjab Local Council Ordinance, 2000 in which the Provincial Election Commissioner does not find figure anywhere and cannot pass any direction to the District Returning Officer for the change of the result and cannot deprive any successful candidate of his success by issuing any direction to the D.R.O. Only remedy available after the notification of the election is filing an election petition under rule 70 of the Punjab Local Commissioner Election Rules, 2000. The R.O. And D.R.O. Have become functus officio after issuance of the notification in the gazette hence the orders passed by the D.R.O. On 11-6-2001 and the direction issued by the Provincial Election Commissioner on 29-5-2001 are without lawful authority and without jurisdiction and are set aside by accepting this petition.