Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 3552 of 1983, decided on 5th September, 1983

‑‑ S. 17‑Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, r. 7(6)‑ Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Delimitation‑ Electoral units‑Election Authority specifically maintaining that modification of delimitation as made by authority would achieve better compactness and contiguity of electoral unit and Election Authority to embarking upon reconstitution of electoral units contravening no law‑Such reconstitution of electoral units more conducive to conduct of election justly, fairly and in accordance with law‑Decision of Election Authority being within its compe tency, held, not open to scrutiny in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

‑‑‑ Art. 9‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17‑Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979, r. 7(6) Writ jurisdiction‑Judicial review of error only if it is apparent on face of record and displays such glaring illegality that it stands self‑condemned.

‑‑‑ S. 17‑Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, r. 7(6)‑ Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑Delimitation Electoral units‑‑‑Order passed by Election Authority not suffering from any illegality‑Petitioner also not bringing on record all necessary parties despite opportunity given to him for that‑Inter ference declined in writ jurisdiction.

Ifrikhar Ali Sheikh for Petitioner.

A. Karim Malik for Respondent No. 1.

Tanvir Ahmad Khan, A. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 2.

Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for Respondent No. 3.

Muhammad Arif for Respondent No. 4.

Dates of hearing : 4th and 5th September, 1983.

.‑The facts which led to the institution of this writ petition are ; that under the preliminary list prepared by the Delimitation Officer, Electoral Unit No. 20, Zila Council Sheikhupura consisted of Union Council Machirala, Chak No. 575 and Chak No. 4/GB. The first two Union Councils fall in the territory of Police Station Warburton and whereas third is included in the Police Station Nankana Sahib. However, on the petitioner's objection, the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, acting as appellate authority reconstituted this electoral unit as comprising Union Councils of Machirala, Miranpur and Chak No. 575. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the appel late authority under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordi nance, 1979, before the Election Authority. The latter by its order dated 15th August, 1983 modified the delimitation of electoral unit No. 20 and so also that of Units Nos. 13, 15 and 17. So far as Unit No. 20 is con cerned, Union Council Machirala was substituted by Shereen Jhangar. Machirala was added to Union Council No. 17 in place of Fatta‑Thatta and the later was included in electoral unit No. 13, wherefrom as stated above Shereen Jhangar was removed to electoral unit No. 21. The validity of this order bay been called in question by the petitioner through this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the police station Warburton is constituted by only 3 Union Councils, namely, Machirala, Miranpur and Chat No. 575, thus delimitation made by the appellate authority consisted of not only a geographically compact unit but also maintained an adminis trative unit. His learned counsel went on to argue that Union Council Shereen Jhangar forms part of the Police Station Nankana Sahib and by its inclusion in electoral unit No, 20, the Election Authority completely disintegrated the administrative unit of the Police Station, disturbed compactness of the area and thus violated its own instructions on the subject. He then referred to rule 7(6) of the Election Rules, to contend that the Election Authority could intervene only if there was an error in the orders of the appellate Authority. In his submissions within the meaning of rule 7(6) ibid, an order can be treated as visited by an error only if it is violative of any provisions of the Ordinance or the Rules framed thereunder. The argument thus was that as the order of the appellate Authority did not suffer from any such error, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Election Authority was illegal and without lawful authority.

3. In the impugned order the Election Authority has made an observation that Chak No. 575 has only one spot‑link with the rest of the constituents of the Unit. In this connection, the learned counsel drew my attention to the plan Annexure C' to point out that Chak No. 575 has fairly a long common boundary with the other Union Councils, namely, Machirala and Miranpur. He submitted that the view taken by the Election Authority is entirely against the record and amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record which justifies removal of the impugned order through judicial review.

4. I have examined the available record, to weigh the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the plan Annexure D' it transpires that the area comprising three Union Councils, namely, Miranpur, Chak No. 575 and Shereen Jhangar, is a compact block. In the impugned order, the learned Election Authority has specifi cally maintained that the modification of the delimitation as made by it, would achieve better, compactness and contiguity of the electoral unit. I do not find any wrong with the opinion formulated by the Election Authority, in this behalf is correct that by reconstitution of the electoral Unit No. 20, the area of Police Station Warburton, has been bifurcated but in the matter of delimitation, for the purposes of Zila Council, wholesome preservation of administrative unit of Police Station is not sine qua non for the validity of such delimitation. In my view the Election Authority in embarking upon the reconstitution of the electoral unit has not contravened any provision of the Ordinance or the Rules.

5. The source of authority exercised by the learned Election Autho rity is to be found in section 17 which vests it with fairly wide powers to review the orders passed by any subordinate officer ; and

"make such consequential order as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring that an election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules."

This power, in no manner is circumscribed, by the rules framed under the Ordinance. Upon the facts of the case I have no reason to hold that the learned Election Authority in any way acted in derogation of the provisions of section 17 ibid. True enough, the delimitation made by the appellate Authority as shown in plan Annexure C' gives the complexion of a compact area but according to the Election Authority by reconstitution of the Electoral Unit, still better compactness and conti guity was achieved. Obviously, such reconstitution would be more conducive to the conduct of the Election justly, fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules. Such a decision is well within the competence of the Election Authority and is not open to scrutiny in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Impliedly, the impugned order shows that the order of the appellate authority did not provide adequate basis for holding elections in the manner envisaged by section 17 and thus would constitute an error within the meaning of rule 7(6).

6. The petitioner's learned counsel is not wrong in contending that common boundary between Union Council of Chak No. 575 and the other two Union Councils, i.e. Machirala and Miranpur, extends over fairly a long area. The averment in the impugned order that this Chak has only a spot‑link with the other area in question is thus erroneous. But, there' can be no review of an error unless it is apparent on the face of the record. An error falls in the later category only when the order, on they face of it, displays such a glaring illegality that it stands self‑condemned. On reading the impugned order as a whole I do not think that the error in, question denudes it of soundness.

7. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks the restoration of the order of the appellate Authority. If a such relief is given, the delimitation of the electoral units Nos. 17 and 13 shall also be affected but no one from electoral unit No. 13 has been impleaded as a party. It is to be seen that the nomination papers have already been invited. Those who have filed the nomination papers and want to contest the election from electoral unit No. 13, are necessary party to this writ petition. Before proceeding with the bearing of the writ petition, the petitioner was asked if he was prepared to bring ail the necessary parties on the record but he did not avail of this opportunity and his learned counsel insisted that the writ petition in its present form is competent. The stand taken by him is untenable and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of non‑joinder of the necessary parties.

On this ground, as well as for the reasons that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality muchless a jurisdictional defect this writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

I agree.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.