2005 PLP 617 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.

Through this appeal, the appellant has called in question the order dated 30-8-2002 passed by the Returning Officer, NA-240, PS-91 and 92 Karachi West whereby the nomination form of respondent No.2 was accepted. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ishaque alias Sathi M. Ishaque, appellant in person, Mr. Syed Muhammad Saleem, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, Director, Finance/ representative of University Grants Commission. It was mainly contended by the appellant that the degree produced by the respondent No.2 was bogus, as it did not contain the required particulars and was not countersigned by the Registrar. The objections filed by the appellant before respondent No.1 were not taken into consideration and the nomination form was wrongly accepted, as there is no provision for provisional acceptance of the nomination form. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced the degree in original. He also produced School Final Examination Certificate and Intermediate Examination Certificate along with other documents viz. Certificate of Domicile and Citizenship Certificate of respondent No.2. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, learned representative of the University Grants Commission submitted that notwithstanding the genuineness of the degree furnished by respondent No.2, the University of Calcutta from where the said degree was issued, was not an accredited institution and that the said degree was not acceptable. The arguments have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused. It appears appropriate to reproduce herinbelow the order passed by the Returning Officer:-- ORDER Accepted provisionally subject to verification of his degree issued by Calcutta University, India. The order passed by the learned Returning Officer reproduced hereinabove is in derogation of law as there is no provision of provisional acceptance of nomination form. The original degree and the relevant documents furnished by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have been examined. The Bachelor of Arts Degree does not show the father s name of the holder of the degree. It is breft of the Roll Number of the degree-holder. It contains the sole signature of the Vice Chancellor, without seal. It has not been countersigned by any of the Officers of the University such as Dean of Faculty or Registrar. It also does not show as to in which Division of holder of the degree was placed. The necessary particulars which are lacking in the Degree render it to be dubious. The said degree is not recognized by the University Grants Commission. In the circumstances respondent No.2 is not qualified to be elected as a member of assembly as provided under section 99(1)(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The provisional acceptance of nomination form of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 was illegal. Appeal is accordingly accepted. Resultantly, the nomination form of respondent No.2 stands rejected. H.B.T./M-183/K Appeal accepted.