P L D 2003 Lahore 138 (PLP)

Provided that in case of a person who has resigned or retired from such service, a period of not less than six months has elapsed since his retirement; (h) has not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired froth public service on grounds of moral turpitude; (i) does not possess assets which are inconsistent with his declaration of assets or justifiable means, whether held in his own name or of the dependents or any other person or corporate body in whose name assets are held in trust or under any other formal or informal arrangement whereby the de facto control of such assets including their sale, transfer or pecuniary interest, is retained by him; (j) has not been adjudged a wilful defaulter of any tax or other financial dues owed to the Federal or a Provincial or a Local Government of any financial institution, including utility bills outstanding for six months or more; (k) has not been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice involving moral turpitude or misuse of power of authority under any law for the time being in force; (l) has not been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three month for an offence under any law and, a period of not less than five years has elapsed since his release; and in case of a member or d holder of a public office, has not been sentenced to imprisonment; (m) has not failed to file the required return of election expenses or is not convicted for exceeding the limits of election expenses prescribed under the electoral laws; (n) has not been declared an un-discharged insolvent by any Court; (o) does not engage in any transaction involving pecuniary interest wits the Local Government of which he is a member; (p) does not absent himself without reasonable cause from three consecutive meetings of the Local' Government of which he is a member; (q) does not fail to attend a training course when required to do so by law; (r) has not been and is not involved, in activities prejudicial to the ideology, interest, security, unity, solidarity, peace and integrity of Pakistan and its people, and the good order and harmony of society; (s) has not used for his election the platform, flag, symbol, and financial or material resources or support of a political, religious ethnic or sectarian party, formation or organization." The concept of joint candidacy is provided in section 16 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 which is as under:‑‑ "

16. Joint candidacy and elections. ‑‑‑(1) A Zila Nazim and a Naib Zila Nazim or a Town Nazim and a Naib Town Nazim or a Tehsil Nazim and a Naib Tehsil Nazim or a Union Naztm and a Naib Union Nazim shall contest election in their, respective wards as joint candidates. (2) The Nazim and the Naib Nazim of a District Government or a Town Government or a Tehsil Government securing as joint candidates the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. (3) In case a Zila Nazim and a Naib Zila Nazim do not secure majority of the total votes of the members of the Union Councils in the District, there shall be held a fresh election, within one week of the first election, in which the joint candidates for such offices securing the highest and the second highest number of votes shall be contestants, and the joint candidates securing the highest number of votes in the fresh election shall be declared elected." Section 18‑A of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 provides for election of a candidate in case a member ceases to hold office one reason or the other. It reads as under:‑‑ "18‑A. Causal vacancy.‑‑(1) If the seat of a member becomes vacant during the term of office' of a Council, a new member shall be elected through bye‑election and such member shall hold office for the remaining part of such term. (Underlining is mine): Provided that all bye‑elections shall be held once a year on date fixed by the Chief Election Commissioner. (2) A vacancy in the office of a Nazim shall be filled by an officiating Nazim elected by the members of the Council concerned by a majority vote: (a) The member so elected shall continue to hold his substantive office as member till the bye‑election to fill the vacant office is held. (b) A Naib Nazim will not be eligible for bye‑election or to be an officiating Nazim, and (c) In the event of temporary absence of a Nazim the Naib Nazim of the Council concerned shall act in place of the Nazim. " Corrupt practice, bribery, undue influence and illegal practice corresponding penal consequences, have been defined in sections 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 which are reproduced as under:‑‑ Section 22 of the Ordinance mandates as follow:‑‑ "

22. Corrupt practice.‑‑‑A person is guilty of corrupt practice punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, if he is guilty of bribery, personation of undue influence. Section 23 reads as under:‑‑ "

23. Bribery.‑‑‑A person is guilty of bribery, if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf‑‑ (1) receives, agrees or contracts for any gratification for voting or refraining from voting, or for being or refraining from being a candidate at, or withdrawing or retiring from an election; (2) gives, offers or promises any gratification to any person‑‑ (a) for the purpose of inducting‑‑. (i) a person to be or to refrain from being a candidate at an election; or (ii) a voter to vote, or refrain from voting at any election; or (iii) a candidate to withdraw or retire from an election, or (b) for the purpose of rewarding‑‑ (i) a person for having been or for having refrained from being a candidate at an election; or (ii) a voter for having voted or refrained from voting at an election; or (iii) a candidate for having withdrawn or retired from an election. Explanation.‑‑‑In this section, gratification included a gratification in money or estimable money and all forms of entertainment or employment for reward." Section 25 ibid is as under:‑‑ "

25. Undue influence.‑‑‑ A person is guilty of undue influence, if he‑‑ (1) in order to compel any person to vote, refrain from voting,‑ or to induce or compel any person to withdraw his candidature at an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf‑‑ (a) makes or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint; (b) inflicts or threatens to inflict any injury, damage, harm or loss; or (c) uses any official influence or Governmental patronage. (2) On account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having withdrawn his candidature, does any of tile acts specified in clause (1). (3) By abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance‑‑ (a) impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise by a voter; of (b) compels, induces or prevails upon any voter to refrain from voting or compels any voter to vote. Explanation. ‑‑‑In this section, harms includes social ostracism or ex communication or expulsion from any caste or community." Section 26 mandates as under:‑‑ "

26. Illegal practice.‑‑‑A person is guilty of illegal practice punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, if he‑‑ (1) obtains or procures, or attempts to obtain or procure, the assistance of any officer or official of the Federal Government, a Provincial Government or a Local Government or authority to further or hinder the election of a candidate; (2) votes, or applies for a ballot paper for voting at an election knowing that he is not qualified for voting or is disqualified from voting; (3) votes, or applies for a ballot paper for voting more than once at any polling station; (4) removes a ballot paper or a ballot box from a polling station or destroys, damages or tampers with the ballot‑box used at a polling station; (5) knowingly induces or procures any person to do any of the aforesaid acts;"' (6) fails to provide statement of election expenses as required under this Ordinance; (7) makes or publishes a false statement‑‑ (a) concerning the personal character of a candidate or his relaxation calculated to adversely affect the election of such candidate or, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true; (b) relating to the symbol of a candidate whether or not such symbol has been allocated to such candidate; or (c) regarding the withdrawal of a candidate; (8) knowingly, in order to support or oppose a candidate lets, lends, employs, hires, borrows, or uses any vehicle or vessel for the purpose of conveying voters to or from the polling station, except when a person conveys himself or any member of the household to which he belongs, to or from the polling station. (9) causes or attempts to cause any person present and waiting to vote at the polling station to depart without voting." The grounds on the basis of which the election of a returned candidate can be declared void are stipulated in rule 81 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 which stipulate as under‑‑ "

81. Grounds of declaring election of returned candidate void.‑‑‑(1) The Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate .to be void if it is satisfied that‑‑ (a) the nomination of the returned candidate was invalid; or (b) the returned candidate was not, on the nomination day qualified for, or was disqualified from being elected as a member or Nazim or Naib Nazim, as the case may be; or (c) the election of the returned candidate has been procured or induced by any corrupt or illegal practice; or (d) a corrupt or illegal practice has been committed by the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the connivance of the candidate or his authorized agent. (3) The election of a returned candidate shall not be declared void on the grounds‑‑ (a) that any corrupt or illegal practice has been committed, if the Tribunal is satisfied that it was not committed by or with the consent or connivance of that candidate or his election agent and that the candidate arid the election agent took all reasonable precaution to prevent its commission: or (b) that any of the other contesting candidates was, on the nomination day, not qualified for or was disqualified from, being elected as a member. " Section 152 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 enumerates the qualifications for candidate and elected members of a local council and lays down that if it is found by the Chief Election Commissioner that anyone has contravened the afore‑referred provisions, the said member shall stand disqualified for being a candidate for election to any office of the local Government for a period of four years. Section 154 of the said Ordinance reiterates the principle of joint candidacy in election as provided in section 16 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 but provides that in the event of the occurrence of a casual vacancy, "a candidate in the office of a Nazim or a Naib Nazim shall contest the election for such office in individual capacity". Section 161 of Ordinance, 2001 lays down the procedure for the removal of a member and it reads as under:‑‑ "

161. Removals.‑‑(1) Where proceedings of disqualification under section 152 have been initiated on an application made by any person or by the Chief Election Commissioner on his own motion against a member, Nazim or Naib Nazim, the Election Commissioner or any authority authorized by it may issue a notice to show cause to a member. Nazim or as the case ma be Naib Nazim, within a specified period as to why proceedings against him may not be taken for his removal for breach of any of the provisions of section 152. (Underlining is mine). (2) Where the Election Commission or an authority authorised by it is not satisfied with the reply to the notice to show cause referred to in subsection (1) or any reply to the said notice is not filed within the period fixed by him he may order for an enquiry in the matter and for that purpose appoint an enquiry officer. (3) On the basis of enquiry held under subsection (2) Election Commission or an authority authorised by it may order the removal of a member, Nazim, or, as the case may be, Naib Nazim: Provided that before an order of removal is passed, the member Nazim or as the case may be, Naib Nazim against whom enquiry proceedings are carried out shall be afforded a reasonabl, opportunity of being heard, including personal hearing if sc requested." Whether the concept of co‑candidacy stipulated in section 16 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 would continue to hold the field after the candidates have been returned as Nazim and Naib Nazim and can this principle be invoked to annul the election as a whole if an Election Petition is allowed against either of them on any ground stipulated in law?

13. The fundamental issue in all these petitions is the question of interpretation of the expression "Joint Candidacy". Statutory interpretation has been a subject of debate among Lawyers, Jurists and Judges down the ages. Methods of statutory interpretation have not been generally regulated by the Parliament or the law maker. These have been evolved by the Judges. These modes have varied in time and space. The various modes ultimately culminated in what the Jurists have termed as "rules of statutory interpretation". These rules, broadly speaking are as under: (i) The Mischief Rule; (ii) The Literal Rule; (iii) The Golden Rule; and (iv) The United Contextual Approach. For the purpose of the instant case the united contextual approach would be of relevance. This has a rather recent origin. Smith and Bailey (in the English Legal System, Third Edition, page 363), referred to the following passage in Attorney‑General v. Prinvr Ernest Augustus Hanover (1957 AC 36) to explain this approach:‑‑ "Words, and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation; their colour and content are derived from their context. So, it is that conceive it to be may right and duty to examine every word of a statute in its context, and I use context in its widest sense which I have already indicated as including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute, but its preamble, the existing state of the law, other statutes in pari materia and the mischief which I can by those and other legitimate means, discern the statute was intended to remedy... No one should profess to understand any part of a statute or of any p other document before he has read the whole of it. Until he has done so, he is not entitled to say that it, or any part of it, is clear and unambiguous. " The very title of section 16 is suggestive of its meaning and import. It is "Joint Candidacy and Elections". It shows that the element of "Joint" is relatable to candidates in elections only and not beyond that. This legislative intent is implicitly reiterated/reflected in other provisions of the same Act, the related Statutes and the Rules framed thereunder. For instance if a returned candidate/member is unseated or a seat falls vacant, then section 18‑A The Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000) stipulates bye‑election of that seat only and not that of the other member who got elected with him through joint candidacy. Section 154 and section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 are analogous to sections 16 and 18‑A respectively of the Punjab Government Elections Ordinance, 2001. Section 196 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 provides for repeal of the previous two related Ordinances (1) The Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1976, (2) The Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000. Yet subsection (3) of section 1 of the same Ordinance (XIII of 2001) defers its enforcement and the repeal of the earlier law to a date or dates, the Government may by notification in the official Gazette declare. Those provisions remained in vogue till 26th September, 2002 when the Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of the Punjab issued the requisite declaration in terms of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 which was notified in the Punjab Gazette and reads as under:‑‑ "NOTIFICATION: No. SOV(LG)5‑3/2001, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under subsection (3) of section 1 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (XIII of 2001), the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to enforce the provisions of Chapter XIX of the said Ordinance, with immediate effect." Subsection (2) of section 196 (of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001) provides that "notwithstanding the repeal of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, all rules, regulations and bye‑laws framed under the repealed Ordinance shall continue to be in force provided those are F not inconsistent with the other provisions of this Ordinance (of the repealing Ordinance). Subsection (3) of section 196 contemplates the continuity and mode of removal of those elected under the repealed Ordinance the operative part whereof reads as "shall continue to hold their respective offices till the completion of their terms, unless earlier removed or recalled under this Ordinance". Section 161 (of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001) lays down procedure of removal of a Nazim or Naib Nazim if he lacks any of the qualifications in terms of section 152 and it does not talk of any joint removal/liability. And finally under section 164 of the same Ordinance, the Chief Election Commissioner, who is to notify "every election, bye‑election, and result of such elections and resignation, removal or recall of a member, Nazim or Naib Nazim as the case may be". The underlining is mine. Under section 38 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000, the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 were framed which, by virtue of section 1. subsection (3) were still in force at the relevant time as admittedly the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 had not, by then, been notified by the Government to have been repealed. Rule 81 lays down the grounds on the basis of which the Tribunal shall declare the election of "the returned candidate" and not of candidates as void. Those grounds are also relatable to a returned candidate. Those are as under: (a) The nomination of the returned candidate was invalid; or (b) the returned candidate was not, on the nomination day qualified for, or was disqualified from, being elected as a member or Nazim or Naib Nazim, as the case may be; or (c) the election of the returned candidate has been procured or induced by any corrupt or illegal practice; or (d) a corrupt or illegal practice has been committed by the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the connivance of the candidate or his authorized agent. The above mentioned scheme of law clearly shows that the post election procedure for (i) removal of a member, (ii) the bye‑election to a vacant seat and the subsequent and (iii) notification of its result is member specific and not joint. Besides looking at the statutory context to interpret the "Joint Candidacy", the well‑known rules of language can also be made use of for the same purpose. One such rule is ejusdem generis. It means general words which follow particular ones normally apply only to such persons or things as are ejusdem generis (i.e. of the same genus or, class) as of the particular ones. Smith and Bailey on the Modern English Legal System Third Edition, page 378). In the present context, the word "joint" is ejusdem generis to the word which follows i.e. "candidacy". Yet another Latin Tag i.e. Noscitur a soclis would also be very instructive. It means that words derive colour from those words which surround them. It is a fundamental rule in the construction of statutes that associated words explain arid limit each other. The meaning of a word may be ascertained by a consideration of the company in which it is found and the meaning of the words which are associated with it. (Brown v. Chicago N.W. Ry. Co.78 NW 771). The distinction between the two Latin tags was graphically explained in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Saba (AIR 1960 SC. 610 and 613 its under:‑‑ "Associated words take their meaning from one and another under the doctrine of Noscitur a soclis, the philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it. Such doctrine is broader than K the maxim ejusdem generis. In fact the latter maxim is only an illustration of specific application of the broader maxim noscitur a socl is." This is in line with the law laid down in Zamiruddin Ahmad v. Havas Khan PL.D 1969 Supreme Court 57 and Messrs Kashmir 'Pottery Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax PLD 1973 Lah.

837. In the light of what has been discussed in the preceding paras. this Court is of the considered view that "Joint Candidacy" is limited to elections only, that the principle of sinker would not be applicable and removal, disqualification or annulment of an election of a member would not affect the election of the other returned candidate who may have contested elections as a Joint Candidate with the former. Whether the learned Tribunal fell in error in declaring petitioner No.2 as below 25 years of age and thereby ignoring the Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation wherein his date of birth is entered as 31‑3‑1974? (In W.P. No.9029 of 2002).

14. In the above mentioned case petitioner No.2's date of birth, as per the entries made in the Municipal Register, was 31‑3‑1974. However, in the original Matriculation Certificate his date of birth was mentioned as 10‑8‑1976 but subsequently it was changed, as per the evidence, on 1‑3‑2001. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that "the change of date of birth in the matriculation certificate as well as in the corporation record was made with mala fide intention in order to avoid disqualification". If the age of the petitioner No.2 is calculated in terms of he entries made in the earlier Matriculation Certificate (date mentioned as 10‑8‑1974) it becomes to 24 years, 6 months and 13 days on 23‑2‑2002 which was the last date for filing the Nomination papers. However, in the municipal register, his date of birth is 31‑3‑1974. Certified copy of the said entry was placed on record as Exh.R2 which shows that the information qua his birth was reported to the concerned Municipal Officer on 1‑4‑1974 i.e. within a week of his birth: There is nothing on record and it has not been contended either before this Court that any challenge was thrown by the respondent objectors to the afore‑referred entries made in the Municipal Register before any Competent Authority under the hierarchy of Punjab Local Government Department. Such entries have a presumption of truth and if necessary correction was made in the Matriculation Certificate no exception could be taken to it. Preference is always given to these municipal entries as compared to the entries made in the School Leaving Certificate or the Matriculation Certificate. The question of his date of birth is further affirmed by another piece of circumstantial evidence i.e. Exh.R3 which is the certified copy of the Municipal Register indicating that petitioner No.2's younger sister was born on 19‑9‑1976. In the backdrop of the afore‑referred material on the record the entries made in the Municipal Register of Birth had to be given preference to the School Leaving Certificate or Matriculation Certificate. Similar view was taken in Khushnood Iqbal. v. D.R.O. 2001 MLD 1908 wherein, at page 1910, it was observed that "once this is prima facie found then the entry in the said birth register has to take precedence over the entry in Matric Certificate". A presumption of truth is attached to entries made in the Register of Births and Deaths under Articles 85 and 90 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Muhammad Aslam and another v. Mst. Sardar Begum alias Moor Nishan 1989 SCMR 704, wherein at page 706, it was held as under:‑‑ "All the submissions are devoid of any legal force. Taking up the first submission it may be stated that the Municipal Register of Births and Deaths are a public record within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act 1872 (Article 85 of Qanun‑e -Shahadat Order, 1984), and, therefore, certified copies of entries in them are admissible in evidence (see Anisur Rehman v. Bani Ram (59 PR 1901) and Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence by M. Monir page 786 (Pakistan Edition). See also Jai Bhagwan v. Gutto and others (AIR 1934 Oudh 167) and Mst. Anwari Jan v. Baldua and another (AIR 1936 Allahabad 218). Therefore, appellants could prove her age by production of certified copy of the relevant entries of the Register of Births and Deaths and the Court was bound under section 79 of the Evidence Act to presume that the certified copy was genuine. It was, however, submitted that there is no presumption as to correctness of the entries in the register therefore, the certified copy could not prove that respondent's date of birth was 14th September, 1963 this date of birth was recorded on 20th September, 1963, within six days of the birth. At that time there could be no need or reason to give a wrong date of birth. Therefore, this must be her real date of birth and would and should prevail over the oral evidence in this case." The finding of learned tribunal with regard to the age of petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No.9029 of 2002 in the light of the afore‑referred discussion cannot be maintained. ISSUE NO.III. Whether the learned Tribunals rightly declared the Matriculation Certificate of petitioner No.2 (Allah Dad) in W.P. No.8752 of 2002 and petitioner No.2 (Muhammad Usman Mirza) in W.P. No.9338 of 2002 to be fake?

15. In W.P. No.8752 of 2002 petitioner No.2's Matriculation Certificate was declared by the Tribunal to be fake. The learned Election Tribunal based its finding on a letter received from the Secretary, Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore bearing No.821 dated 24‑4‑2002 to the following effect:‑‑ "The certificate of Mr. Allah Dad son of Ata Muhammad bearing Roll No.53, Certificate No.001253 Secondary School Certificate (Matric Tech.) Sessions 1981 is fake/bogus." No tenable evidence was led by the petitioner in rebuttal to the afore‑referred letter. The afore‑referred letter was duly proved before the learned Tribunal by the official of the Board and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners ever challenged the afore‑referred finding before the competent forum in the hierarchy of the Punjab Board of Technical Education. Similarly in W.P. No.9338 of 2002 the learned Tribunal found that the Matriculation Certificate produced by Muhammad Usman Mirza (petitioner No.2 in the said petition) was fictitious. This finding is based on (i) statement of P.W.1 Abaidullah an official of the concerned Board to the effect that Roll No.10573 on which the said petitioner claimed to have appeared and cleared Matriculation was that of a girl named Rukhsana daughter of Muhammad Anwar, (ii) statement of P.W.2 (Mushtaq Ahmad) of the Registration Office. He said that in Form‑Alf, the said petitioner is shown to have "middle" qualification, (iii) Exh.PI was placed on record which is the enquiry report of the Board wherein it was held that petitioner No.2's Matriculation Certificate was fake. Petitioner could not lead any tenable evidence in rebuttal. This afore‑referred findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunals of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in the Constitutional petitions. The findings, therefore, to the extent of petitioner No.2 in both the petitions merit no interference. "Whether the learned Tribunal correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions in holding that the act of petitioner No.2 (and his brother), in surrendering his personal land in favour of the residents to widen the village street amount to bribery and illegal practice entailing disqualification? (In W.P.No.9004 of 2002)." The allegation against petitioner No.2 in the afore‑referred petition was that he provided electric polls to the residents of the locality during the election campaign and that he was signatory to an Iqrarnama (Exh.A2) entered into between himself, his brothers and residents of the locality to the effect that to widen the street to the extent of six feet he and his brothers, in e the name of God Almighty would, surrender a certain part of the land/property owned by them and that they had no objection if the residents of the locality got the said land mutated in the Revenue Record for the said purpose. There is no cavil to the proposition, that if a candidate offers or gives or promises any gratification for the purpose of inducing a voter to vote or a candidate to withdraw or to influence the course of election, it, would constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of sections 165 and 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and the election of a returned candidate could be annulled if this charge is proved. These provisions of election laws are meant to ensure the sanctity of the election process. However, while interpreting these provisions care has to be taken in distinguishing a voluntary expression of goodwill in favour of the residents of the locality and the offer made to a potential voter in lieu of the promise held by the latter of support in the election. In the former act, there is no element of bargain whereas in the latter act the bargain could be overt or covert or could be subtle or implied. To declare an act to be a corrupt practice or the transaction to be bribery in the context under consideration, the element of bargain is a condition precedent. Two elements are essential in order to constitute a bargain. Firstly, there must be a gift, an offer or a promise or a gratification and, secondly, there should be an element of solicitation for votes in lieu of gift or promise or gratification. In the instant case, the wording of A.W.2 (Iqramama) indicates that the surrender of land to widen the street was made voluntarily in the name of God Almighty and there was no element of soliciting vote in the said Iqrarnama. The allegation that the petitioner promised and provided electric polls in the locality with a view to influence the course of election, is not borne out from the record. Only A. W.3 Rao Muhammad stated so and that too to the extent that four cemented electric polls were brought by petitioner No.2 three/four days prior to the election day and were kept in his house. This allegation is not corroborated by any other material on record. The three witnesses produced by the respondent objectors belonged to the losing party and no implicit p reliance can be placed on their testimony. The view that bargaining with voters is an essential ingredient to prove corrupt practice or bribery is fortified by two judgments of the Indian Supreme Court reported in Harjit Singh v. S. Umrao Singh (AIR 1980 SC 701) and Iqbal Singh v. Gurdas Singh AIR 1976 SC

27. For what has been discussed above it is declared and held as under: (i) That the concept of Joint Candidacy stipulated in section 16 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 is relatable to election or bye‑election only and would not affect the election of a returned candidate if an election petition is allowed against a co- returned candidate. All the Constitutional petitions to the afore- referred extent are allowed. (ii) Writ Petition No.9029 of 2002 is allowed. For reasons given in para. 14, the findings qua petitioner No.2 are not sustainable. (iii) For what has been discussed in para. 15, Writ Petition No.8752 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.9338 of 2002 are dismissed with regard to petitioner No.2 in both the petitions. (iv) Writ Petition No.9004 of 2002 is also allowed to the extent of petitioner No. 2 as well. (Reasons are in para. 16 above). M.B.A./M‑1638/1 Petitions allowed.