2002 PLP 685 (MLD)

Ch. Shafi Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Bashir, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing 29th January, 2001. The Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner for declaring notification dated 13‑12‑2000 passed by respondent No.1 to the extent of Union Council Adam Sahaba, Tehsil Sadiqabad District, Rahim Yar Khan as illegal, without lawful authority and issuance of direction to the respondents to include Chak No. 164‑P in Union Council, Adam Sahaba and exclude from Union Council Ranjhey Khan.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition' are that for the forthcoming elections the Government has promulgated Puniab Local Government Elections Ordinance, V of 2000. Under the said Ordinance the Deputy Commissioner‑Respondent No.1 has been conferred with the power of Delimitation Officer, who constituted Union Council of District Rahim Yar Khan and issued a notification announcing the list of Union Councils.

3. That one person Abdul Qayyum son of Miran Bakhsh resident of Chak No.148‑P had filed an objection petition before respondent No.2, who accepted the same and excluded Chak No.164‑P from the Union Council Adam Sahaba and included in Union Council Ranjhey Khan and thereafter respondent No.1 issued fresh Notification No.1G/ELEC/RYK‑7587, dated 13‑12‑2000, hence this petition. 3‑A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if Chak No.164‑P remains within the territorial jurisdiction of Union Council Ranjhey Khan. The residents of the said Chak would suffer many hardships in routine work of Union Council and the Headquarter of Union Council is at a long distance. He further contended that there is a much disparity in the population of two Union Councils.

4. On the other hand, learned A.A.‑G. and Ch. Shafi Muhammad Tariq, Advocate counsel for Khalil Ahmed contesting respondent opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. I have perused the comments submitted by respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that Chak No.164‑P has been included in Union Council Ranjhey Khan to maintain the territorial unity of the Union Council as provided in clause (c) subsection (2) of section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, V of 2000.

7. The de‑limitation of Union Council and Ranjeh Khan had been made keeping in view the compactment of block and in the interest of local community. The Union Council Ranjhey Khan and Adam Sahaba had been reconstituted in accordance with the scheme and need of area under the decision of respondent No.2 Commissioner Bahawalpur Division. The delimitation of electoral unit of Union Council had been made by the Authority conferred power under Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, V of 2000, which is a forum of exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of elections and can pass any order in respect of the de‑limitation. It is a settled proposition of law that order of a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, if passed with application of mind and appraisal of evidence, cannot be interfered with by the High Court on the ground that some other opinion could be formed about matter. This argument is strengthened by the dictum laid down in case of Mian Abdul Rehman and others v. Punjab Local Councils Elections Authority (NLR 1992 Civil 441), Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah v. Punjab Local Councils Authority and others (1999 MLD 2813) and Muhammad Hayat Lak v. Punjab Local Councils Elections Authority and others (NLR 1992 Civil 474).

8. Learned counsel for the` petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned notification or that the same had been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The High Court is not competent to interfere with the order of Tribunal on purely equitable consideration. In this respect reliance can be placed on Muhammad I Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139).

9. For the foregoing reasons and in agreeing with the principles laid down in the cases referred to above, this writ petition having no force is dismissed. H.B.T./F‑92/L Petition dismissed.