GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the disqualification of a Zila Council member. The respondent, an employee of Pakistan Oil Fields Limited, was elected to the Zila Council. The petitioner challenged this election, arguing that the respondent was disqualified under Article 10(2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, because his employer was a company controlled by the Federal Government. The High Court had previously dismissed the petition, ruling that mere regulatory compliance or government-imposed conditions did not equate to government control over the company. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the company's Articles of Association, the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and the Pakistan Petroleum (Production) Rules, 1949, raised substantial questions requiring further judicial consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondent's employment with the company constituted a disqualification under the relevant election laws.
- Does the requirement for a company to comply with government regulations and statutory rules constitute 'control' by the Government for the purpose of election disqualification?
- Is an employee of a company subject to the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, considered to be in the service of a body controlled by the Government?
- What constitutes 'control' by the Government under Article 10(2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977?
- Article 10(2), Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977
- Sections 3-7, Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952
- Section 6, Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952
- Pakistan Petroleum (Production) Rules, 1949
- Companies Act, 1913
- Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-Respondent Muhammad Hayat was elected as Member Zila Council from Electoral Unit No, 13, Attock, in the Local Council Elections held under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 in September,
190. The admitted position is that the respondent is an employee of the Pakistan Oil Fields Limited which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1913. It is further stated that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 is applicable to the aforesaid Company.
2. The petitioner who is a voter of the constituency challenged the election and membership of the respondent to the office of Member Zila Council on the plea that he was disqualified to be elected or to hold the said office as he was in the service of a Company which is controlled by the Federal Government. His writ petition to that effect has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi by judgment dated 22-10-1983 on the ground that Pakistan Oil Fields Limited is not controlled by the Federal Government. Being aggrieved by this judgment the petitioner has brought this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The provision of law applicable in the case which regulates the matter of disqualification and which requires interpretation in Article 10(2) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 relevant portion of which reads as follows : "A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a Member of Parliament-,
(aa) If he is in the service of any statutory body or anybody which is owned or controlded by the Government or in which the Government has a controlling share or interest or."
' The contention of the petitioner that the Articles of Association of Pakistan Oil Fields Limited coupled with sections 3 to 7 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and the Pakistan Petroleum (Production) Rules clearly established that the Company was controlled by the Government was repelled by the learned Judges of the High Court on the ground that "mere fact that a Company has to comply with a host of directions imposed by or succumb to pre-emptive rights arrogated to itself by the Government under statutory enactments or Rules or by the terms of Exploration and Prospective ting licences granted by the Government does not mean that the Company is controlled by the Government"
4. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has assailed the view that prevailed with the High Court and has reiterated his contention that the Company with whom the respondent is employed is under the control of the Government. He has, inter alia, referred us to Article 5 of Articles of Association of the Company which provides that the Directors shall comply with the Pakistan Petroleum (Production) Rules or other requirement of the Government of Pakistan for the time beingin force in regard to the issue and allotment of shares. He submits that in the matter of employment also the Company is under the direct control of the Central Government by virtue of the application of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, section 6 of which vests powers vide amplitude in the Central Government to make rules regulating the wages and other conditions of service of persons governed by the said Act. He has also referred us to a number of rules in the Pakistan Petroleum (Production) Rules, 1949, in order to show that Pakistan Oil Fields Limited which is engaged in the business of petroleum was operating under the direction and control of the Central Government in matters regulated by the rules.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we consider that the question whether the respondent was disqualified to be a member of the Council by virtue of the fact that he was employed with a body controlded by the A Government, in the light of the provisions relied upon, requires consideration.
Leave is accordingly granted. The petitioner shall furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs, 2,500.
The appeal shall be prepared on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The office shall fix the hearing of the appeal within six months.