2006 PLP 739 (YLR)

NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--Petitioner's nomination papers for the seat of Muslim General Councilor, Ward No.6, Union Council No.39, Tehsil Rojhan District Rajanpur, had been rejected by the Returning Officer vide his order dated 23-7-2005 on the ground that, "he is wilful defaulter of Zila Council as well as Municipal Committee, Jampur and his nomination papers were rejected on this ground by Syed Ijaz Qutab, the then learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, Tehsil Rojhan and thereafter the candidate has not deposited even a single penny to the? above said institutions". Petitioner's appeal against this very order was also dismissed by the District Returning Officer, Rajanpur vide his order dated 27-7-2005. Hence, this constitutional petition against the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as a matter of fact, the observation of the District Returning Officer in the concluding para. of his impugned order that, "his writ has also been dismissed by the Honourable Lahore High Court wherein he sought relief that he was not under legal obligation to pay the outstanding amount as claimed by the District Council", is facially incorrect. The said constitutional petition was withdrawn with permission to file a civil suit. Copy of the judgment of the said Constitutional petition has not been placed on this file rather copy of order passed in Writ Petition No.13167 of 2000, "Zaheer Ahmad v. District Returning Officer and another" on 6-2-2001, has been annexed (C) with this petition and the same does not have any relevancy qua the instant matter. Even otherwise, on a Court question, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that no civil suit has ever been filed by the petitioner after the dismissal of his constitutional petition. He also concedes that the said writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case with reference to the definition of adjudged defaulter. In the given situation, I am not impressed at all particularly when the petitioner has not paid even a single penny out of the outstanding amount. This is a significant aspect as it has not been denied that petitioner's nomination papers filed in the last local bodies elections remained rejected on this very ground and he had not challenged the said orders.

4. For what has been stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence qua the impugned orders, hence, this petition stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-567/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.