Stereo. H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
LAHORE HIGH COURT
RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.2773/2016
(Ch. Sultan Mahmood
Versus
Appellate Authority etc. )
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing:
10.11.2016
Petitioner by:
Mr. Abid Hussain Abid,
Advocate
Respondent No.3 (also writ petitioner in Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza,
Advocate.
connected W.P. No.No.2772/2016) by:
Election Commission by:
Mr. Fazal ur Rehman,
Advocate.
Atir Mahmood, J. Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of
Writ Petition No. 2772 and 2773 of 2016 as common questions of law and fact are
involved therein.
2.
Brief facts of both the cases are that the petitioner Ch. Sultan Mahmood and
respondent No.3/writ petitioner in connected W.P. No.2772/2016 Mian Rehan Ali
Ansar (hereinafter called the ‘rival candidate’) filed their nomination papers for the
seat of ‘Worker’ in Municipal Committee Jhelum. Nomination papers of the
petitioner as well as the rival candidate were rejected by the Returning Officer on
18.10.2016. Both the candidates preferred appeal which also were dismissed vide
order dated 22.10.2016. Hence these writ petitions have been filed.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are
against law; that the petitioner duly falls within the ambit of ‘Worker’ but he was
knocked out illegally and unlawfully on flimsy grounds, therefore, this writ
petition be allowed, the impugned orders be set aside and the nomination papers of
the petitioner be accepted. Same is the prayer of learned counsel for rival
candidate. However, both sides assert that the other is ineligible being not falling
within the definition of ‘Worker’.
Writ Petition No.2773/2016
4.
2
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Election Commission has
vehemently opposed these writ petitions mainly on the ground that the petitioner
does not come within the definition of ‘Worker’.
5.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
6.
The only ground on the basis of which nomination papers of the petitioner as
well as the rival candidate were rejected is that they don’t fall within the definition
of ‘Worker’ contained in Section 2(mmm) of The Punjab Local Government Act,
2013. The said definition is reproduced below:
“2(ii) “Worker” means a person directly engaged in work or is dependant on
personal labour for subsistence living and includes a worker as
defined in the Punjab Industrial Relations Act 2010 (XIX of 2010)”
(Underline is mine)
This is evident from the above definition that the ‘Worker’ is a person who is
directly engaged in work or is dependant upon labour for his subsistence living. So
far as the petitioner is concerned, he, as per his own nomination papers, owns 7
marla plot, 7 marla residential house, Motor Byke, five tola god jewellery, Bank
Accounts in JS Bank Limited and United Bank Limited. In addition thereto, he
runs AK College, G.T. Road, Dina and also holds an NTN. Whereas, the rival
candidate owns 25 kanals of land which is alleged to be on roadside valuing
Rs.40,00,000/- and Bank Account in Meezan Bank Limited. In view of the
aforesaid, it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner as well as the rival candidate
do not subsist on the income being a ‘Worker’ rather they seem to be men of
means. They have even not mentioned in their affidavits that their subsistence is on
the work being ‘Workers’. In my considered view, the seat reserved for workers is
meant for those who belong to a specific class, therefore, the persons belonging to
such class should only be allowed to contest the election against such seats. If
persons not belonging to a class for which the seats have been reserved are allowed
to contest election against the seats reserved for such class, the purpose of
reserving the seat for such class will not only fall but also the rights of such class
protected by the legislature are likely to injure severely. Therefore, the nomination
papers of the petitioner as well as his rival candidate having sound financial status
Writ Petition No.2773/2016
3
and not belong to class of ‘Workers’ for which the seat of ‘Worker’ has been
reserved by legislature were rightly rejected.
7.
There are concurrent findings against the petitioner as well as his rival
candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for rival
candidate could not point out any illegality in the impugned orders. Therefore, both
the writ petitions in hand having no force are dismissed.
(ATIR MAHMOOD)
Judge
Akram
Stereo. H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
LAHORE HIGH COURT
RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.2772/2016
(Mian Rehan Ali Ansar
Versus
Appellate Authority etc. )
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing:
10.11.2016
Petitioner by:
Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza,
Advocate.
Respondent No.3 (also writ petitioner in Mr. Abid Hussain Abid,
Advocate
connected W.P. No.No.2773/2016) by:
Election Commission by:
Mr. Fazal ur Rehman,
Advocate.
Atir Mahmood, J. For the reasons recorded in my judgment of
even date in Writ Petition No.2773/2016, this writ petition having no
merit is dismissed.
(ATIR MAHMOOD)
Judge
Akram