1992 PLP 1187 (CLC)

Facts. are brief and simple. Nonetheless, those are required to be stated for understanding the controversy. Gorakhpur was a new local council. Provincial Election Authority, in terms of section 9 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 fixed 10 seats for it. However, in the course of process of elections to the local‑ bodies in Punjab, the Union Council was delimited in eleven electoral units. Consequently, in the elections held on 28‑12‑1991, eleven persons were elected from the corresponding electoral units of the Union Council. Obviously, the elected Councillors exceeded the number of seats fixed for the Union Council. Mistake was surfaced and noticed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi. He addressed a memorandum on 11‑1 1992 to the Chairman, Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, Lahore, for rectification of the error and gave his own proposal. Since it gave the panoramic picture of the whole events leading to the mess, it shall be profitable to make a reference to it. It runs as:‑‑ "During General Election to Local Councils, 1991, a clerical mistake was detected at the time of Notification which occured due to rush of work by the staff of Returning Officer/A.C. (Saddar), Rawalpindi. (2) Punjab Local Councils Election Authority allocated 10 seats to newly created Union Council, Gorakhpur, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi but, instead of keeping in mind new allocation of seats, the staff divided the Union Council into 11 Electoral Units at the time of delimitation and election was held accordingly to 11 seats. (3) The mistake was detected when all the process had been completed. Since the mistake was serious, the Notification of elected candidates of Union Council, Gorakhpur was withheld. (4) This problem can be solved if your honour very kindly increase the allocation of seats of Union Council, Gorakhpur from 10 to 11 as a special case. Otherwise we will have to go back to initial stage of delimitation of wards of whole Union Council and election process will be much delayed. (Sd. Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi The Election Authority did not agree to the proposal put forth by the Deputy Commissioner. Instead, it reversed the process of election to the Union Council Gorakhpur, and, by declaring it as void, gave a fresh schedule for holding of elections to the Union Council. Aggrieved of the action, nine elected Councillors, as observed above, approached this Court for an appropriate direction to the Election Authority for setting aside of its decision. Writ petition came up before our learned brother S.M. Zubair, J., on 27‑1‑1992. His Lordship called for comments, and, meanwhile ordered maintenance of status quo. Later, the writ petition was placed before us. We have heard the learned counsel at length, but have been unable to discover any serious merit in his contentions. There was no dispute that the Election Authority had fixed ten seats in Union Council Gorakhpur, in accordance with the population formula laid down under section 9 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. As yet, there is no decision of the election Authority for increasing the number of seats in the Union Council. Delimitation of Union Council in eleven electoral units for elections to it was an illegal act and could not sanctify the result. Proposal given by the Deputy Commissioner for increasing the number of seats was turned down by the Election Authority. Slackness, remissness or casual handling in the administration, whatever name one may like to give it, has without doubt caused immense expenditure and inconvenience to a section of population, without their contributing to it. A little more attention on the part of administration could have avoided it. However, its omission has led to an impasse. Not only the expense has gone waste, but much of the time and energy involved in the electioneering also. For a Union Council, having ten fixed seats, eleven Councillors came out successful. How could all be accommodated and allowed to function was enigmatic and eluded decision. The contention that since in the new delimitation, Adiala was delimited into two electoral units, viz. Adiala‑1, Adiala‑2 and the rest of the electoral units were kept intact, the Councillors elected from eight electoral units kept intact must not be disturbed was an impracticable solution and could not be sustained by us. Either the decision of the Election Authority was correct or defective. It could not be bifurcated for upholding it in parts. It could either be accepted as a whole or set aside in its entirety. Its basis is such that it must be upheld in its existing form. Result is that the election held from eleven electoral units for ten delimited seats was wholly void. Upholding of the earlier election would tantamount to perpetuation of a patent illegality and that we were not prepared to contribute to. Strong emphasis of learned counsel that approving delimitation of the Union Council in eleven electoral units shall tantamount to increase of corresponding seats was misplaced and was not acceptable. Delimitation and fixing of number of seats in a local council on the basis of population formula were two separate acts. Without doubt, delimitation in itself could not control the number of seats in a local council. Rather, the latter shall govern the former. Having considered the election dispute from all conceivable angles, we have not been able to discover any fault with the decision of the Election Authority and exercise of power by it within parameters of section 17 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Till the process of election was complete, it had full powers to ensure its fairness and legality. That is the purpose and object for which it has been set up under the law. We may notice at the end that our order shall not be a bar for the petitioners to approach the Election Authority to consider feasibility of a prayer for confining the fresh election to the electoral units of Adiala‑1 and pdiala‑2, on its own merits, if it did not affect other electoral units of the Union Council. Having regard to the aforesaid, there is no merit in the writ Petition which is dismissed in time.‑ AA./A‑95/L Petition dismissed.