1983 PLP 584 (CLC)

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellants were elected s members of Zilla Council, Jhelum in the elections held on 12th of December, 1979 against the seat reserved respectively for a peasant, a worker and a woman. The respondent No. 1 challened that order through the writ petition noted above on the ground that as the election to the seats reserved for the minority community, had not been held, the election of the appellants were unlawful. The learned Single Judge accepted(, the petition as referred to above and hence the appeal.

3. The short point raised on behalf of the appellants is that as the Returning Officer had done all that what was necessary to conduct elections to the reserved seats for non‑Muslim, tic was not obliged to start the procedure once again after no one had filed any nomination papers to contest the election for those seats. The position submitted by the appel lants is supported by the contents of para. 3 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

4. The Election Authority had issued a Notification under rule 12 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, on 1st of September, 1979. It did give the dates for filing the nominations, both for Muslims as well as non‑Muslim seats. As no one submitted any nomination papers for the non‑Muslim seats, the polling for Muslim seats only was held and result announced.

5. The fact that a Notification was issued and no nomination papers for non‑Muslim seats received, is admitted by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The Returning Officer had also informed the Election Authority that no non‑Muslim candidate has filed his ,t nomination papers. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was any omission on the part of the authorities to hold an election for the non Muslim seats.

6. The question arising is the case, therefore, is whether the Election Authority was bound to elect persons to tire seats reserved for non‑Muslim community, before holding the elections for the other reserved seats. of the appellants or could it go on with the same after there was no response from the non‑Muslim community. The contention of the learned counsel is that as the Election Authority had announced a fresh schedule for the election of non‑Muslim seats, vide Notification dated 28th November, 1979, the election to the reserved seats of the appellants ought to have been withheld till 15th of December, 1979.

7. The learned counsel is not in a position to show firstly, if any non‑Muslim would have submitted his nomination papers in response to the second invitation. He is also not in a position to say as to what would happen if no non‑Muslim candidate was coming forward to fill the seat reserved for his community.

8. The position as it obtains, on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, is that if no non‑Muslim candidate files his nomination paper, the election to the reserved seats of appellants cannot be held. The acceptance of this argument would mean that the non‑Muslim community can defeat the very law in case they are so minded and join together for the purpose. .

9. In this view of the matter, such an argument is not acceptable The purpose of the law is to conduct elections. The Election Authority did take all the necessary steps. No decision, on the other hand. can be given to lay down a proposition which may help in defeating the very purpose of the law. We therefore, are not persuaded to agree with the learned Single Judge. This appeal is consequently allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. Y. H.. Appeal allowed.