IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
 
 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
Against order dated 09.11.2015 of Lahore High 
Court, Multan Bench, passed in Writ Petition 
No.16621 of 2015. 
 
Munawar Hussain Bukhari  
 
 
 
Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Appellate Authority/Tribunal, Alipur District 
Muzaffargarh & others  
 
 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, ASC 
 
For Respondent No.3:  
Mian Ahmed Mehmood, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Date of Hearing:  
 
25.03.2016  
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Mushir Alam, J-. The petitioner challenged the 
candidature of Abu Bakar, respondent No.3 herein, from his 
being elected as a General Councilor, Ward No.1, Municipal 
Committee Alipur, Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh on 
twofold grounds. Firstly, that he was an employee of Utility 
Stores Corporation of Pakistan [to be referred as the 
Corporation], and a period of five years has not lapsed since 
his dismissal from service on 26.12.2013 and secondly that 
he is involved in criminal cases and has been declared 
absconder from the Court of law and is thus disqualified to 
contest the elections under Section 27 of the Punjab Local 
Government Act, 2013 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 
2013]. The Returning Officer, vide order dated 08.10.2015 
dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner and accepted 
the nomination papers filed by respondent No.3 to contest 
local bodies election. This order was maintained by the 
Appellate Authority/Tribunal, with the observations that “the 
respondent No.2/candidate was not a regular employee of 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
2 
Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited. 
Moreover, the appellant did fail to produce any record 
regarding conviction passed by any court of law against the 
respondent No.2/candidate.”, vide order dated 04.11.2015. 
Writ Petition was also dismissed, vide impugned order dated 
09.11.2015 and orders passed by the lower fora were 
maintained on the grounds that “the respondent No.3 is not a 
government servant/employee neither falls in the definition of 
a public servant and that the documents attached by the 
petitioner do not show, in any manner whatsoever, that 
respondent No.3 has been convicted by any competent Court. 
Hence, the present petition.  
 
2. 
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the very 
outset does not press the disqualification of the respondent 
No.3 on the last mentioned ground that he is involved in 
criminal cases and has been declared absconder from the 
Court of law, as he has not been able to procure any material 
to prove any conviction from the Court of competent 
jurisdiction as postulated under clauses (i) and (j) of sub 
section (2) of section 27 of the Act, 2013. 
 
3. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 
the record. It is not disputed that respondent No.3 was an 
employee of the Corporation, which is admittedly owned and 
controlled by the Government of Pakistan. The Act, 2013 
through clauses mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 
27 thereof not only enumerates disqualifications but also 
period of ineligibility on account of such disqualification for 
the candidates and elected members. Relevant for the 
purposes of present controversy are the disqualification 
enlisted in clauses (e), (g) & (h) of subsection (2) of Section 27 
of the Act, 2013, which are reproduced as under:-  
“(2) 
A person shall be disqualified from being 
elected or chosen as, and from being, an elected 
member of a local government, if he– 
 
(e) is in the service of any statutory body or a 
body which is owned or controlled by the 
Government or a Provincial Government or 
the 
Federal 
Government 
or 
a 
local 
government or, in which any of such 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
3 
Government or local government has a 
controlling share or interest, except the 
holders of elected public office and part-
time officials remunerated either by salary 
or fee; provided that in case of a person 
who has resigned or retired from any such 
service, a period of not less than two 
years has elapsed since his resignation or 
retirement;  
 
(g) has been dismissed from public service on 
the grounds of misconduct unless a period 
of five years has elapsed since his 
dismissal; 
 
(h) has been removed or compulsorily retired 
from public service on the grounds of 
misconduct unless a period of three years 
has 
elapsed 
since 
his 
removal 
or 
compulsory retirement; (Underlined to add 
emphasis) 
  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has not 
disputed the fact that the Corporation is a “body” corporate 
registered under Companies Ordinance 1984, which is owned 
and controlled by the Federal Government, and as per “A 
Functional 
and 
Legal 
Classification 
of 
Corporations, 
Autonomous Bodies and Attached Departments” issued by the 
National 
Commission 
for 
Government 
Reforms, 
Prime 
Minister’s Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, (placed on 
record through CMA#917/16). The Corporation, under the 
Ministry of Industries, Production & Special Initiatives, 
Government of Pakistan, find mentioned on page 57 at Serial 
No.7 thereof, therefore, there is no need to further dilate upon 
the status of the Corporation. Admittedly, the respondent 
No.3 was employed in the Corporation as a Record Keeper 
(BS-9) on contract basis for a period of one year, vide 
appointment letter dated 21.01.2013. It is also not denied 
that the respondent was found guilty of “misconduct” (absent 
from duty, disobedience, willful negligence, inefficiency, 
dereliction in duty) and the competent authority in terms of 
USC Service Rules inflicted major penalty of dismissal from 
service upon him with immediate effect, vide order dated 
26.12.2013.  
 
5. 
 
It may be observed that disqualification of the 
nature as prescribed in terms of clauses (a) to (j) to sub 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
4 
section (2) of Section 27 of the Act of 2013, more particularly, 
in terms of clause (e), (g) and (h) ibid subject matter of present 
controversy are not something novel or new to the election 
laws, somewhat similar disqualification in one or the other 
form find mentioned in various election laws, right from 
provisions contained under Article 5(I)(a) of the Elective 
Bodies (Disqualification) Order, 1959 and under the present 
constitutional dispensation in terms of  Clauses (i), (j) and (k) 
of sub-Article (1) of Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Clauses (i), (j) and (k)  of 
subsection (1A)  of Section 99 of the Representation of People 
Act, 1976 and Clause (g) and (h) of the Punjab Local 
Government Ordinance, 1979 since repealed through present 
Act of 2013 prescribe similar disqualification for the 
candidates and elected members of either house of the 
Parliament/Assembly and or Local Bodies. 
 
6. 
 
In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the 
learned ASC for the parties, it would be appropriate to define 
“Public Service” as used in clauses (g) and (h) of subsection (2) 
of Section 27 ibid. “Public Service” has not been defined under 
the Act of 2013. In Black’s Law Dictionary (sixth Edition year 
1999) “Public Service” is defined as follows: 
“A term applied to the objects and enterprises of 
certain kinds of corporation, which specially serve 
the needs of the general public or conduce to the 
comfort convenience of an entire community, such as 
railroad, gas, water, and electric light companies; 
and companies furnishing public transportation. A 
public service or quasi public corporation is one 
private in its ownership, but which has an 
appropriate franchise from the state to provide for a 
necessity or convenience of the general public, 
incapable of being furnished by private competitive 
business, and dependent for its exercise on eminent 
domain or governmental agency. It is one of a large 
class of private corporations which on account of 
special franchises conferred on them owe a duty to 
the public which they may be compelled to perform”. 
 
 
 
And the “Public Service Corporation” is defined 
therein as “a utility company privately owned but regulated by 
the government. It may sell gas, water or electricity but its 
rates are established by the State”. It is not disputed that the 
Corporation, is fully owned and controlled by the Federal 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
5 
Government as discussed in proceeding paragraph 3, above. 
The Corporation, through network of its utility stores all 
across Pakistan, provides provisions stores at subsidies rates, 
to the general public. Service of such bodies, may it be 
statutory corporate or otherwise owned and controlled by the 
Government or local government or where any of such 
governments has a controlling share or interest is “Public 
Service”.  Even otherwise, “Service of Corporation” has been 
declared to be service of Pakistan, under section 5 of the 
Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 (PLD 
(CS) 75). Merely because, a person is in ‘service of corporation’ 
or merely for the reason that any service in terms of Article 
160 of the Constitution, 1973 is declared to be service of 
Pakistan, would not confer such person with the status of 
civil servant, within the contemplation of Civil Servant Act, 
1973. For the purposes of attracting disqualification under 
clause (e) of subsection (2) of section 27 ibid, it is to be seen 
that the candidate or the elected member of the local body is 
in the service of “statutory body” or “body”, which is owned 
and controlled by or that controlling share or interest therein 
is of Federal, Provincial or Local Government. Thus the 
service of a “statutory body” or “body” of the kind mentioned 
in clause (e) of provision noted herein is undoubtedly “Public 
Service” within the contemplation of clause (g), (h) and (i) of 
the subsection (2) of section 27 ibid. The term ‘in the Service 
of any statutory body or a body which is owned or controlled 
by the Government or a Provincial Government or a local 
government or, in which any of such Government or Local 
government has a controlling share or interest” is a phrase 
similar to phrase “in service of Pakistan or of any statutory 
body or any body which is owned or controlled by the Federal, 
Provincial Government or Local Government”. Per clauses (i), (j) 
and (k) of sub-Article (1) of Article 63 of the Constitution of 
Pakistan, 1973 such phrase is further qualified with “or in 
which the Government has a controlling share or interest”. This 
Court in the case of Muhammad Mubin-us-Salam and others v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 S.C 602) has held that “Civil 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
6 
Servant is included in the definition of Service of Pakistan, the 
vice versa is not true”. Likewise a person in the service of 
“statutory body” or “body” of the kind mentioned in clause (e) 
of section 27 (2) ibid; performs “public service” and despite 
falling within the class of employees in service of Pakistan is 
not a “civil servant” within the purview of section 2 (a) of Civil 
Servants Act, 1973 and or section 2 (a) of the Services Tribunal 
Act, 1973.  Any person, who was under the employment of a 
statutory body or body as discussed above and who has been 
removed from “Public Service” on the ground of “misconduct”, 
comes within the mischief of clause (g) of subsection (2) of 
section 27 ibid and is disqualified from being elected or 
chosen as member of local government unless a period of five 
years has lapsed from the date of such dismissal. Admittedly, 
Respondent No.3 was dismissed from service of 
the 
Corporation on 26.12.2013. He filed Nomination papers for 
the general election of local body scheduled on 2.12.15 on the 
date of filing Nomination papers period of five years had not 
lapsed from the date of his dismissal from service, and still 
period of embargo of such disqualification clinches to the 
Respondent No.3 from being a candidate and or member of 
Local Government. 
 
7. 
 
As noted above learned Appellate Authority, 
dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the 
Respondent No.3 “was not a regular employee of Utility Stores 
Corporation of Pakistan” and the learned Judge in Chambers 
in the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition observing that 
the “Respondent No.3 was an employee of a public company, 
in any case is not a government servant/employee neither fall 
in the definition of public servant”. Disqualification for a period 
of two years,  five years  and three years respectively from the 
date of resignation, dismissal, removal or compulsorily 
retirement from service of a person in the service of the 
Corporation as enumerated in clauses (e), (g) and (h) of section 
27 (2) applies equally to the persons in the service of 
Pakistan, which includes civil servants and so also to all 
persons in “service of any Statutory body” or “body” of the 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
7 
kind mentioned in clause (e) of subsection (2) ibid. Only  
exception carved out is person who is “holders of public office 
and part time officials remunerated either by salary or fee”. 
Respondent No.3 does not fall within the excepted category. 
The provision under discussion also does not make any 
distinction between the regular or contractual employee of the 
statutory body or body of the kind under discussion.  
 
8. 
 
In the case of Muhammad Nasir Turyali v. Ghulam 
Sarwar Khan (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 570), wherein the 
appellant was appointed as a Management Trainee in a 
company owned by the Federal Government, duly elected and 
such election was successfully challenged and maintained up 
to this Court. Para 9 thereof, specifically dealing with the 
nature of disqualification as urged in the case in hand is 
reproduced as under:- 
“The Expressions “service of any statutory body or 
any body which is owned or controlled by the 
Government or in which the Government has a 
controlling share or interest” should not be confused 
with “Civil Service” or a “Civil Servant”. It is not 
circumscribed by any concept of salary or fee. It 
connotes any service, post or office in the statutory 
body regulated by the Rules or Regulations framed by 
the competent authority. The only rider is that the said 
statutory body should either be owned or controlled 
by the Government. It is nobody’s case that the 
Company is not owned and controlled by the Federal 
Government. Appellant Muhammad Naseem Turyali 
was appointed as Management Trainee and he was in 
the service of the Company which was owned by the 
Federal Government and thus he was squarely hit by 
Article 63(1)(e) and (k) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan”   
 
9. 
 
Plea of “contractual employment” , as urged by the 
Respondent No.3 herein, was considered by a Larger Bench (5 
members) of this Court in the case of Abida Hussain v. 
Tribunal for N.A. 69 (PLD 1994 S.C 60) and while interpreting 
Section 99 of Representation of People Act, 1976 read with 
Articles 63(1), 260(1) & 240 of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 it maintained the disqualification 
as a period of two years having not passed since the petitioner 
therein 
relinquished 
the 
charge 
of 
her 
post 
as 
an 
Ambassador, which was a contractual appointment for a 
period of two years. It was held that irrespective the person 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
8 
was not a civil servant within the meaning of Civil Servants 
Act would not put him beyond the pale of the definition of 
service of Pakistan.  
 
10. 
 
In another case cited as Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. 
Ghulam Muhammad Ali (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 369), the 
appellant therein, was dismissed from Police Service on the 
ground of misconduct; challenge to his nomination papers 
were, sustained by the fora below, however, the High Court 
allowed him to contest the election. Post election challenge 
made through election petition, was sustained and it was held 
that “dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct is self 
acquired and cannot be removed by afflux of time”. In the case 
of Waqar Hussain Shah v. Returning Officer, Union Council 
No.31 (2002 SCMR 404), contention of the petitioner therein 
that he was an employee on contract basis and therefore not 
disqualified was repelled and this Court in para 4 of its 
judgment while interpreting analogous provision held that 
“the Legislature in its own wisdom has not excluded employees 
on contract basis from the purview of this section”.  
 
11. 
 
Learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
respondent 
when 
confronted with the above, has placed heavy reliance on a 
Lahore High Court’s larger Bench (three members) decision 
reported as Muhammad Iqbal v. District Returning Officer (PLD 
2006 Lahore 13), wherein the similar disqualification as noted 
in clause (e) of section 27(2) ibid contained in Section 152 
(1)(g) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 came 
under discussion of the Court, nomination of the petitioner 
therein rejected by the District Returning Officer was 
accepted by the High Court and it was held that: 
“prima facie, petitioner No.1 was not a regular 
employee of WASA/LDA and his tenure as work 
charge employee each time remained short of 90 days 
and he was not confirmed in service. Tentatively, he 
was not disqualified to contest the election. Since 
determination of his disqualification requires holding 
of detailed trial and recording of evidence which 
exercise is not permissible within constitutional 
jurisdiction of this Court.  The Province of East 
Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC 
636) up-to date, including the case of Muhammad 
Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of NWFP 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
9 
through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar 
and others (1993 SCMR 618) and since the petitioners 
have succeeded in the elections and their result has 
already been notified, we dispose of this petition 
allowing the petitioners to continue in office and 
permitting the respondents to challenge their election, 
if they so wish, on the basis of pre-election 
disqualification through a petition under Rule 76 of the 
Punjab Local Government Rules, 2005, where-under 
such a petition is maintainable before the Election 
Tribunal concerned.” 
 
 
 
Above cited judgment does not rescue the 
Respondent 
No.3, 
as 
the 
High 
Court 
observed 
that 
“Tentatively, he was not disqualified to contest the election. It 
may be observed that even under the repealed Punjab Local 
Government Ordinance 2001, “holders of (elected) public office 
and part time officials remunerated either by salary or fee” 
{word (elected) is additional word} were also kept out of the 
pale of such barring provisions. In cited case “employee on 
work charged” basis, on tentative determination, was not 
considered to be falling within the category of employee 
coming within the net of barring clause. It may be observed 
that it was merely a tentative assessment, and not a 
conclusive determination of the Court whether the work 
charge employee would fall within the exempted category of 
the 
employee 
of 
the 
Corporation 
or 
otherwise. 
Such 
controversy was left to be determined in regular election 
Petition and the Bench abstained from making a conclusive 
determination to such an effect, nor we intend to enter into 
such realm, being not germane to the issue in hand. 
 
12. 
 
In view of the foregoing discussion, impugned 
judgments of the High Court and orders of the forums below 
cannot be sustained. On the date of nomination, Respondent 
No.3 was under legal bar to contest election of Local 
Government as five years had not elapsed from the date of his 
dismissal dated 26.12.2013 from public service of the 
Corporation. 
 
13. 
 
It was vainly urged that since elections have been 
held and the respondent has returned successful, the petition 
is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner could have 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
10 
challenged such election through regular Election Petition 
under Section 38 of the Act, 2013. Indeed, under the Punjab 
Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2013 Returning 
Officer, and so also the Appellate Tribunal are vested with 
summary jurisdiction to examine and decide question of 
qualification and or disqualification of a candidate, in case 
such determination is dependent on detail enquiry or 
necessitating recording of evidence; than such determination 
is left to be agitated and determined at the regular trial in 
post election petition under Section 38 before the Election 
Tribunal constituted under Section 39 of the Act, 2013. In the 
instant case, it is noted that the Respondent No.3 was still 
under the spell of five years bar within the contemplation of 
clause (g)’ of subsection (2) of section 27 of the Act, 2013 to 
contest election on the seat of General Councilor, Local 
Government, scheduled to be held on 5.12.2015. The bar to 
run for the election was attached all along right from the 
inception of nomination papers, throughout the challenge and 
even during the pendency of instant CPLA, however, during 
the course of proceedings before this Court on 03.12.2015 
while adjourning the matter, the Court declined to stay the 
process of election and it was however ordered that “the 
respondent No.3 is, however, allowed to contest the elections 
which will be subject to the decision of this Court”. 
 
14. 
 
In instant case no detail and or elaborate enquiry 
was required to be made by the fora below; facts were 
straightforward and mostly admitted. The disqualification (i.e. 
“dismissed from public service on the ground of misconduct”) of 
the Respondent No.3, within the contemplation of clause (g) of 
Section 27 (2) of the Act, 2013, as the bar to contest election of 
local government subsisted since very inception of filing of his 
nomination papers as the period of five years from the date of 
his dismissal (w.e.f. 26.12.1013) from service of the 
Corporation had not lapsed. Even otherwise, in view of the 
legal position as discussed above fate would not have been 
different than what is being achieved at the time of final 
determination now.  In the case of Mohd. Sadeque v. Rafiq Ali 
Civil Petition No.3460 of 2015 
11 
(PLD 1965 Dacca 330), a Division Bench of the Dacca High 
Court, repelled the contention that delay in decision of the 
writ petition, when the respondent earned the qualification 
during the pendency of the petition, was not entertained to 
deny the relief. In instant case, the bar still subsists, we have 
no doubt in our mind that at the time of filing nomination 
papers the Respondent No.3 was not eligible to put up his 
candidature for the office of General Councilor of Ward No.1 
Alipur, his election is void ab-initio, and as observed above, 
even the fate of the challenge to his election, in post election 
scenario would not have yielded a different result. 
 
15. 
 
Consequently, impugned judgment of the High 
Court dated 9.11.2015 and so also order of the Appellate 
Tribunal Alipur, dated 4.11.2015 and that of the Returning 
Officer dated 8.10.15 are set aside. Objections filed by the 
Petitioner to the candidature of Respondent No.3 are 
sustained. Nomination papers filed by the Respondent No.3 
stand rejected. This Petition is converted into appeal and 
allowed with cost throughout. 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
ISLAMABAD, THE 
25th of March, 2016 
ZR/-