' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The appellant filed Writ Petition No,17803 of 2002 with the following prayers:-- "It is respectfully prayed that order dated 24-9-2002 passed by the learned Returning Officer (respondent No,1) may kindly be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' The respondent No,1 may be directed to allocate the election symbol of "Arrow" to the petitioner."
2. The learned Singe Judge dismissed the Constitutional petition vide impugned judgment dated 2-10-2002. Hence, present Intra-Court Appeal.
3. The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the appellant submitted an application before the competent body constituted by the Pakistan Peoples Party for securing ticket of Pakistan Peoples Party. The competent body of the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarian granted the ticket to the appellant to contest the elections from Punjab Provincial Assembly Constituency No,PP-157, Lahore-XXI. The Pakistan Peoples Party intimated the Returning Officer that the appellant secured ticket from the Pakistan Peoples Party, The Returning Officer allotted symbol of arrow to the appellant vide order dated 14-9-2002.
' The aforesaid symbol was published in the name of the appellant by the Returning Officer as is evident from the Annexure 'C' attached with the writ petition. The appellant came to know on 25-9- 2002 that A his election symbol "arrow" has been changed to "Scooter" by the order of Returning Officer under the instructions of respondent No,2. He further submits that the aforesaid symbol was allocated to the Pakistan Peoples Party within prescribed period as is envisaged under Article 5 of the Allocation of Election Symbol Order, 2002. Subsequently, the appellant was also allotted symbol arrow in terms of Article 7 of the aforesaid Order which had become final in his name under the provision of aforesaid Order with the nomination papers, under sections 11 and 21 of the Representation of the People Act read with instructions 60, 61 and 62 issued by the Elections Commissioner. He further urges that once election symbol was allotted to the appellant and acted upon could not be revoked/changed unilaterily by any authority without notice and consent of the appellant, particularly when the appellant has started election campaign on the basis of aforesaid symbol and got himself introduced in his constituency qua the said symbol. He further urges that principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in all respects in the present case. He further submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law to ,dismiss the Constitutional petition in violation of provision of election laws as the election laws mentioned the specific period qua each and every action. He further urges that case of the appellant is fully covered by the judgment cited by the learned counsel of the appellant before the learned Single Judge "Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattas Singh" AIR 1982 SC 1559.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant and perused the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that once election schedule has been announced by the competent authority then Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of bar contained in Articles 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan. In arriving to this conclusion, we are fortified by the following judgments:--
(i) "Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi and others" PLD 1989 SC 396.
(ii) "Ch. Nazir Ahmad and others v. Chief Election Commission" PLD 2002 SC 184.
The learned Single Judge rightly observed that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and law as is mentioned in Paragraph No,5 of the impugned judgment. Paragraph No,4 of Indian Supreme. Court is reproduced hereunder:- "4. Accordingly, the necessary change of symbols was effected in Form 7-A, the list of contesting candidates. The respondent fought the election on the reserved symbol of the Indian National Congress (I) 'hand' and secured 22,460 votes. As against this, the appellant, who was a candidate of Lok Dal Party, secured 16,686 votes while the aforesaid Jagmohan Singh as an Independent Candidate got 242 votes. The appellant was therefore, defeated by the respondent by a margin of 5,774 votes. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent under section 100(1)(d)(iv) read with section 123(7) of the Act. The averments in Paragraphs Nos.4 to 18 related to the change of symbols allotted to the respondent viz., 'hand' instead of 'bow and arrow' allotted to Jagmohan Singh."
It is settled principle of law that power to decide the dispute regarding recognization to the political party and allot the symbol is a part of State Judicial power and power was conferred on the Election Commission by virtue of Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In arriving to this conclusion, we are fortified by the judgment of Indian Supreme Court reported as "All Party Hill Leaders, Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma and others" AIR 1977 SC 2155. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "We may at once state that the controversy raised before the Commission is not squarely within the scope of paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order. That would however, not conclude the matter as the controversy could well be adjudicated by the Commission, relating as it was, to derecognition of a recognized political party vis-a-vis the choice of their reserved symbol in connection with election, although they may take place in future. The Commission will have the jurisdiction to determine the controversy raised, clothed as it is with the power conducts elections under Article 324 and to give directions in general or in the particular in respect of symbols which would involve the determination of claims as recognized the political parties in the State. No objection, therefore, can be taken to the Commission's adjudication of the matter as being beyond the scope of its jurisdiction."
' The question of law as also considered by the High Court Andhra Pradesh in "Cheekati Parasuram Naidu v. Mariserla Venkatarami Naidu and others" AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 169. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "Thus, I am clearly of the opinion that the Election Commission has got ample power to order change of symbol of a candidate by virtue of the powers vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution read with rule 10(4) of Conduct of Election Rules of 1961 and Para. No,18 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968."
' Thus, I see no justification to construe the above provision barring jurisdiction of the Commission to change allotment made by the Returning Officer. Time limit in the provisions now referred would not bar its jurisdiction to alter the symbols. ----This direction of the Commission accepting one candidate as the candidate of the political party is not in contravention' of the provision of the Act, Rules or the Symbol Order and hence, I hold that the order of the Election Commission altering the symbol as per Exh.A.-8, B-1 and B-2 is well within its jurisdiction and there cannot be any non-compliance of the provision of the Act within the meaning of section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act."
' The question of bar vis-a-vis allotment of symbol by the Election Commission was also considered by the Calcutta High Court in "Sushil Kumar Dhara v. The Election ' Commission of India and another" AIR 1973 Calcutta 184 and laid down the principle that the. High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The relevant observation is as follow:-- "I have hereinbefore set out in detail the facts of the present case. In the instant case the election had already commenced before the publication of the impugned notification under paragraph 17 of the Symbol Act Order, 1968, dated February 1, 1972. The contest for election to West Bangal Legislative Assembly was reasonably imminent to borrow the expression in P.237 of Halsbury's Laws of England Edn.2. Vol.12 (quoted) in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (supra). Evidently, the Election Commission made the said notification under paragraph 17 of the Symbol Order, 1968 for the purpose of allotment of symbols to candidates in the ensuing General Election to legislative assemblies. After the issue of this rule, the Election Commission gave special directions under rule 10(4) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 regarding symbols "Plough". The Commission by its notification dated February 1, 1972, declined to treat Bangla Congress as a recognized party thereby depriving the said party of a reserved symbol. The petitioner by challenging the said notification is in substance calling in question certain steps taken for holding of the ensuing general election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. .Any order made in this rule for recognizing Bangla Congress as a State party would be bound to affect and interfere with the election process which has been already set in motion. This I am precluded from doing, in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution."
' Article 225 excludes the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain any matter relating to the Election (which can be questioned only by an Election Petition under the law prescribed by appropriate Legislature i.e, Representation of People Act, 1976). The word "Election" means the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected and is not confined to the final result, therefore, by virtue of mandate of Constitution prescribed in the aforesaid Article 225 of the Constitution, any matter which arises while the elections are in progress i.e, at every stage from the time of the issue of the notification appointing a date of nomination till the results are declared as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Javaid Hashmi" case supra, meaning thereby Article 225 of the Constitution does not permit interlocutory hold-ups in the process of election. Even otherwise, it is primarily dispute between the petitioner and his political party qua withdrawal of his ticket by his political party.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this I.C.A. Has no merit and the same is dismissed.