' With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties this case is being treated as Pacca case.-
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner contested election for Nazim of Union Council No,58 of the Sahiwal against respondent No,2: At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers an objection was taken that the petitioner is not matriculate, therefore, he is not qualified to be a candidate for Nazim. Consequently, his nomination papers were rejected. The. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No,4038 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 14-5-2001. The petitioner was allowed to contest election. However, the question raised at the time of scrutiny was left open to be decided by the competent Tribunal after the election. As a result of the election, the petitioner was declared as returned candidate. Respondent No,2 alongwith his Naib Nazim Abdul Raul filed the election petition before the Election Tribunal constituted for this purpose. During the pendency of the said election petition, one Muhammad Arshad an elected Councillor of Union Council No,58 filed a miscellaneous application before respondent ,I4.1/Chief Election Commissioner raising, the same objection that the petitioner is not matriculate, as such not qualified to hold the post of Nazim. After hearing the parties, it was held by respondent No,1 that under section 14(e) of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000, the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, therefore, he shall cease to hold the office of Nazim and also stands disqualified from being a candidate for election to a Local Government for a period of four years vide order, dated 2- 11-2001. This order is being assailed through the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notification as required under section 1(3) of the Punjab Local Government Electricians Ordinance, 2001 has been published in the official gazette meaning thereby that the powers vested in the Chief Election Commissioner under section 152(2) of the said Ordinance are not yet available, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed. It is next submitted that the election of the Local Councils can only be challenged under rule 70 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 before a Tribunal constituted under the relevant laws and said Tribunal has power under rule 81 to see the disqualification as in the instant case. It is finally submitted that there is a Constitutional bar provided under Article 225 of the Constitution, therefore, no election can be called in question except through an election petition before a Tribunal, therefore, it is concluded that the impugned order is even unconstitutional.
4. As against this learned counsel for respondent No,2 contends that vide Punjab Local Government Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 dated 5-7-2001, the following amendment has been brought in section 14 by introducing subsection (2) whoever- "(a) is found by the Chief Election Commissioner to have contravened the provisions of subsection
(1) shall stand disqualified from being a candidate for election to a Local Government for a period of four years; or
(b) having been elected as a member of local Government or being a holder of an elected office of Local Government is found by the Chief Election Commissioner to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) shall cease forthwith to be an elected member or to hold the office of such member and stand disqualified from being a candidate for election to a Local Government for a period of four years."
' Therefore, respondent No,1 had the authority to pass the impugned order.
5. I have considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Although no notification as required by section 1(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 has so far been published, therefore, the provisions of section 152 of the said Ordinance are still dormant but in view of the fact that the same power has been given to the Chief Election Commissioner by bringing an amendment as referred by the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. This power of the Chief Election Commissioner is concurred to the powers of the Tribunal given under the rules to determine the election disputes under rule 70 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 225 of the Constitution bars the power exercised by the Chief Election Commissioner in the instant case is without any substance inasmuch as the bar contained under Article 225 of the Constitution only relates to a House (National Assembly and Senate) or a Provincial Assembly, therefore, an election dispute relating to the election of the local bodies is not covered under the said Article.
8. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.