Ch. LIAQAT ALI and anothers vs ELECTION APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ DISTRICT

ORDER

' Nomination papers tiled by the petitioners to seek election to the seats of Nazim and Naib-Nazim in U.C. 118 Lahore were accepted by the learned R.O. The respondent No,3 filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned D.R.O on 15-6-2001, on the ground that the petitioner No,1 being an Administrator of Local Zakat Committee is disqualified to contest election.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no disqualification stated in section 14 of P.L.G.E.O. 2000, is attributable to the petitioner. Dr. A. Basit, Advocate. On the other hand argues relying upon section 23(2) of Zakat Usher Ordinance, 1980, read with section 21(9) of the P.P.C. That said petitioner shall be deemed to be public servant and being public servant he, shall further to be deemed in service within the meaning of section 14(g) of P.L.G.E.O., 2000, and as such his papers have been rightly rejected by the learned. D.R.O. Lahore.

3. Section 14(g) of the said Ordinance states that a person in the service of the Federal, a Provincial or a local Government or, any statutory body or a body which is controlled by any such Government shall not be qualified to be elected or to hold elective office or membership of Local Government. Now as per document Annexure G the petitioner No,1 has been appointed as an Administrator of a Local Zakat Committee under the provisions of section 21(2)(b) of said Ordinance of 1980. I have examined the said provision. It provides for appointment of Administrator by the Provincial Council who shall perform the function of a Committee during the period of its supersession. I find that a specific bar has been placed on the appointment of an official as an Administrator.

4. It is true that as an Administrator the petitioner No,1 can be said to be engaged in the administration of said Ordinance and per deeming provision of section 23 he is a public servant for the purpose of section 21 of the P.P.C. Moreover, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the said petitioner is in the service of Federal, Provincial or a local Government or a statutory body within the meaning of section 14(g) of the P.L.G.E.O., 2000. I may here refer to section 18 of the said Ordinance of 1980 which provides for the constitution of a local Zakat Committee. The proviso to subsection (4) of the said section 18 lays down that a person who is a salaried employee of Government or a local authority or of a Corporation set up, owned or controlled by the Government, shall not be eligible to be a member of Local Committee. It will thus, be seen that bar contained in section 21(2)(b) on the appointment of an official as an Administrator is relatable to the said proviso to section 18(4) of the said Ordinance, 1980. It will thus, be seen that very structure of the Committee and consequently the person who is appointed as an Administrator in case its supersession completely ousts a person mentioned in section 14(g) of the P.L.G.E.O., 2000 from being appointed as a member or as an Administrator. The said provision has been so interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Inayat Ullah v. C.C.-Cum-Chairman, District Zakat Committee and 2 others PLD 1993 SC 426.

5. I, therefore, find that learned D.R.O. Acted without lawful authority while proceeding to reject the papers of the petitioners. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of learned D.R.O. Is set aside while that passed by the learned R.O. Accepting the papers of the petitioners on 11-6-2001 is restored. The petitioner to immediately approach learned R.O. Who shall proceed further in the matter in accordance' with law. Copy Dasti.