2001 PLP 303 (MLD)

Dr. Mohyuddin Qazi for Petitioners. Ch. Habib Ahmad for Respondent No.

5. Muhammad Siddiq, A.D.C.(G), Sargodha. Muhammad Iqbal, ADLG, Sargodha. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, A.A.‑G. (on Court's call). Date of hearing: 7th November, 2000. Purporting to effect delimitation of the Union Councils, respondent No.2 made the delimitations of inter alia, Union Council Chowkira, Ajnala and Chak No.19/NB. The private respondents filed an appeal which was taken up by respondent No.1 who proceeded to exclude Chak Nos.17/SB, 72‑A/SB and 75‑A/SB and to include Chak No.85/SB in Chowkira and to add the Chaks so excluded to Chak No.88/SB, Ajnala, Chak No.23‑A/SB and Chak No.70/SB. In the process Chak No.28/NB was also detached from Union Council Ajnala and to be attached to Union Council Chak No. 19/NB. This was done vide order, dated 15‑10‑2000. Notices were issued and comments have been filed. The Deputy Commissioner explains that Chak No.35/NB was added inadvertently to Ajnala and since after taking away the said Chak the population of Union Council Ajnala stood reduced to 9477 which was less than the population units on the basis whereof a Union Council is to be formed and in order to preserve the said Union Council the said changes have been made.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that respondent No. l has exceeded his jurisdictions under section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 and in the process has violated the said provision while passing the impugned order. The officers present have tried to explain away the matter on the lines contained in the comments filed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and the learned A.A.‑G. have also tried to support the impugned order 9f the Commissioner.

3. Under section 3(2)(c) of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 the area of a union in a Tehsil shall comprise a whole number of Patwar Circles, or a Patwar Circle may contain a number of whole unions. The said provision further mandates the Provincial Government to record reasons to waive the said conditions in any specified case. Admittedly the Union Council Chowkira comprises of two Patwar Circles. The impugned order of the Commissioner has, thus, the effect of bifurcating the Patwar Circle after taking away Chak No. 17‑SB Tangowali. The Commissioner proceeded to include Chak No.85/SB to Chokira. This was done to make up the deficiency in the requisite population unit. I find that the entire exercise has been undertaken to make up the population unit of Union Council Ajnala at a minimum of 13400 in the proposal made for the Union Council in the Sargodha District available at Annexure B of the writ petition. This happened because Chak No.35/NB which was already included in Union Council Chak No.36/NB And was inadvertently included in Ajnala in the proposal made by the Deputy Commissioner. To my mind only to correct the said clerical error there was no justifications for upsetting the constitution of the Union Council Chowkira which admittedly was constituted since 1962. I, therefore, find that respondent No. l has not acted with lawful authority while passing the impugned order and the same is accordingly declared to be without lawful authority. The writ petition is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K.K‑48/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.