1. K. M. A. SAMADANI, J.-This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 2383 and 2384 of 1977 both filed by the same petitioner and both arising out of the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination papers for election to the Provincial Assembly Constituency No. PP-186, D. G. Khan-111. One of the objections to the petitioner's candidature was that, being a depot-holder under the West Pakistan Wheat, Wheat Atta, Maize, Rice and Sugar Distribution Order, 1967, he was hit by Article 10 2)(b)(8) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order (P. O. No. 5 of) 1977. The learned Returning Officer, however, overruled this and the other objections and accepted the petitioner's nomination papers. Thereupon two rival candidates '.Led separate appeals before the Election Commission. Both the appeals %ere allows 1 by a learned Member of the Commission b3 his order dated 30th of August 1977, who held the petitioner to be disqualified from contesting the elections. Hence these two writ petitions which are directed against the order dated 30-8-1977 of the learned Member.
2. The view of the Returning Officer was that the relationship between a depot-holder and the Government was rot in the nature of a contract. However, the learned Member of the Election Commission held that it was a contract for the performance of a service undertaken by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance of the fact that while coming to this conclusion the learned Men-,bar relied upon an unreliable boob of a living Pakistani author. Instead, he has referred us to a book by two Indian authors in support of his contention that a depot holder can neither be said to be a party to a contract with nor an agent to, the Government. It is to be noted here that the Pakistani author, Mr. Anwar A.I, has also relied ripen the rulings of the Indian Courts in his bock "The Election Laws in Pakistan." However, in the other book namely "The Law of Elections and Election Petitions" by the Indian authors (Veda Vyasa and Prem Nath Chadba) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, It has been clearly stated that under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1,446, and the East Punjab Rationing Order, 1948, where the Government assumed control of the supply and distribution of foodgrains to the public, supply and distribution of foodgrains under these enactments was a ---service undertaken by the Government--- within the meaning of section 7(d) of the R. P. Act. 1951. It is true, at the same time, that it his further been stated in the same book that a person who has been appointed as a depot-holder and authorised by the Government to supply rationed foodgrains to card holders in accordance with the provisions of the Rationing Order, is a more licensee and not a person who has entered into a contract with the Government. In support of these observations the authors cited again a number of rulings from the Indian Jurisdiction. Relying upon these and also upon the fact that the term licensee has been used in the Food Laws of Pakistan for a depot-holder, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that a depot-holder is a mere licensee and not a contractor. But it is obvious that what we have to look to is the true nature of the relationship between the depot-holder and the Government and not simply to the words used to describe it.
3. Now, the relevant provisions of sub-article (2) of Article 10 of the President's Order No. 5 of 1971 can be read for the purpose of this case as follows : "A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as and from being a member of Parliament, if he has any share or interest in a contract for the performance of any services undertaken by the Government."
4. Independently of what the Indian Courts have held in this behalf, we are of the opinion that the distribution of foodgrains is a service undertaken by the Government. And in view of the fact that a depot-holder has no choice either in the matter of fixing the prices or choosing the customers or prescribing any limit for the quantity to be sold to any particular consumer, he cannot be said to be a mere licensee in the general sense of the word. He has to carry out the distribution exactly in accordance with the term laid down by the Government and the consideration that he receives for this service is the difference of purchase and sale prices both of which are predetermined by the Government. We, therefore, hold that a depot-holder "has a share and interest in a contract for the performance of a service undertaken by the Government." The petitioner is. Therefore, squarely hit by the Article 10(2)(6)(8) of the P. O. No. 5 of 1977 and the learned member of the Commission, who heard the appeals, rightly disqualified him.
5. As to the second contention that no member of the Commission sitting singly has the authority to decide the appeals under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, it has already been decided by us in W. P. No. 2208 of 1977 that the Election Commission is authorised to delegate its appellate powers to any member of the Commission. It !s not the case of the petitioner that no such delegation was made in favour of the learned Member who decided the appeals against him.
6. Therefore, this contention also fails.
7. By a short order we dismissed the writ petitions on the 20th of September 1977 and these are the reasons therefor. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.