Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner contested the election of Naib Nazim held by the respondents, under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner was elected and was declared returned candidate by the competent authority. Muhammad Islam and Muhammad Mansha, respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed election petition before the concerned Election Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner did not have requisite qualification of Matriculate in terms of rules, regulations framed by the competent authority. During the pendency of election petition, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2000 was amended by the competent authority vide Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner and others filed various applications for amendment of reply, which were dismissed by the learned Election Tribunal vide order dated 1-10-2002. The learned Election Tribunal out of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-- Issues (1)Whether the petition is beyond time and liable to be dismissed? OPR (2)Whether necessary parties have not been joined by the petitioners as respondents thus petition is liable to be dismissed as such? OPR (3)Whether the respondent No. 1 is a disqualified person lacking basic educational qualification to contest the election and if answer to the same is positive the result thereof? OPP (4)Relief.
The learned Election Tribunal finally had given findings against the petitioner that the petitioner did not had requisite qualification of Matric and accepted the election petition to the extent of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the elections were held under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2000. The aforesaid law was amended by the competent authority vide Ordinance XIII of 2001 under the name and style of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. He further submits that the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2001 created a new mechanism for the removal or recall of the elected councillors, Nazims and Naib Nazims under section 152(2)(a) and (b) read with sections 161 and 163. He further submits that the impugned order is not in terms of section 196(3) of Punjab Ordinance XIII of 2001. He further submits that no Election Tribunal was constituted under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of Election Tribunal to decide the question of jurisdiction first then proceed in the matter.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The learned Election Tribunal had given findings of fact against the petitioner after recording the evidence that the petitioner did not had requisite qualification of Matric.
The judgment of the Election Tribunal is in accordance with dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Tariq Mehmood v. District Returning Officer, " (2001 SCM R 1991). It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Board of Intermediate and S.E. v. M. Mussadaq Naseem (PLD 1973 Lahore 600)
Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, etc. (PLD 1964 SC 260)
It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character, he who seeks equity : must come to the Court with cleats, hands: The petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands as the petitioner contested the elections on bogus certificate of Matriculation, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Committee" (PLD 1973 SC 236)
"Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Additional Commissioner, etc." (1998 SCM R 1462)
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had filed his nomination papers with the forged certificate, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled any discretionary relief in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others" (1969 SCM R 141)
"Principal, K.E.M. Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa, etc." (1983 SCM R 196)