SULTAN MAHMOOD vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE, AREA WATER BOARD and others
This matter concerns a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 16(2) of the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005, specifically regarding the authority to adjudicate election disputes and voter list challenges. The core legal question was whether the Chief Executive of the Area Water Board possessed the jurisdiction to pass an order regarding such disputes under the aforementioned rules. The Supreme Court held that a plain reading of Rule 16(2) confirms that any aggrieved person, not limited to candidates, may raise election disputes before the Authority or a duly authorized officer. Consequently, the Court determined that the order passed by the Chief Executive, Area Water Board, on 11-12-2006, was validly issued under the authority granted by Rule 16(2). The Court set aside the High Court's contrary orders, declared the Chief Executive's order to be legally grounded in the Rules, and remanded the writ petitions back to the High Court for a decision on the merits. The key principle established is that statutory rules must be interpreted to allow for the resolution of election disputes by designated authorities.
- Does Rule 16(2) of the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005 allow non-candidates to raise election disputes?
- Can the Chief Executive of an Area Water Board adjudicate election disputes under the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005?
- Rule 16(2), Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005
ORDER
1. ' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- We have heard learned counsel for the parties including Assistant Advocate-General at length and have also seen the available record. Assistance has also been rendered by Mr. Muhammad Shafiq, Secretary, Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (PIDA). We have seen rule 16(2) of the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations)
2. Rules, 2005 which reads as under:-- "(2) All election disputes and disputes relating to the voter lists shall be decided by the Authority, a duly authorized Officer of the Authority or by a dispute resolution committee constituted by the Authority on the application of an aggrieved person."
3. Its plain reading shows that any body who may not be a candidate could raise the election dispute before the within mentioned authority or an Authorized Officer. ' ' Therefore, order, dated 11-12-2006 passed by the Chief Executive, Area Water Board/Superintending Engineer, Lower Chenab Canal, West Circle, Faisalabad, which was assailed by the private respondents before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, could have been treated as an order passed under the abovesaid Rule 16(2) of abovesaid Rules, reproduced above. In these circumstances, learned counsel representing the private respondents does not object to the remand of the cases to the High Court because there is no decision on merits.
2. In view of the above mentioned, both these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed, impugned order, dated 29-5-2007 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petitions Nos.881 of 2007 and 882 of 2007 as well as the order, dated 12-6-2007 in R.As. Nos.48 of 2007 and 49 of 2007 are set aside, order, dated 11-12-2006 of the above mentioned Authority is declared to have been passed under Rule 16(2) of the abovesaid Rules. Writ petitions shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court for their decision on merits, expeditiously.
4. There is, however, no order as to costs.