2013 PLP 1374 (CLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS SHAH — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1374 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS SHAH — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1374 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1374 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1374 (CLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS SHAH — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar for Respondent No.2.
- Nemo for respondents Nos.3 to 8.
- 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Standing Counsel assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have opposed this appeal. It is contended that at the time of filing of nomination papers, the appellant had sworn in an affidavit stating that he did not owe any dues to the Government. The water-charges were yet to be paid. As per wrong written declaration made by him he has rendered himself ineligible to contest the election.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.63(1)(o)
Rejection of nomination papers
Nomination papers filed by the petitioner were rejected on the ground that he was defaulter of water charges of the water used from canal for irrigation purpose
Contention of the petitioner was that his father owed water charges and that too had been paid by him before passing of impugned order
Counsel appearing on behalf of the objector had been unable to substantiate the allegation
Petitioner had sworn affidavit that he did not owe any dues to the Government and water rate or penalty payable were owed by the father of the petitioner
Only the default in payment of the Government dues including the water charges by the candidate himself might render candidate ineligible
Judgment & Decree
On the allegation that the appellant owed Rs.1,79,243/- on account of water-charges and penalty his nomination papers were rejected.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that imposition of penalty on water-charges does not amount to commission of an offence and cannot be termed, conviction. In view of provisions of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic Pakistan, 1973, a candidate may incur an ineligibility if he independently has defaulted in payment of water-charges for over six months period at the time of filing of his nomination papers. That is not in the case in hand. It was not the appellant, but his father who owed the alleged amount and that too had been paid by him before passing of the impugned order, therefore, he/the appellant did not incur any ineligibility. The order passed by the Returning Officer offends the law.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Standing Counsel assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have opposed this appeal. It is contended that at the time of filing of nomination papers, the appellant had sworn in an affidavit stating that he did not owe any dues to the Government. The water-charges were yet to be paid. As per wrong written declaration made by him he has rendered himself ineligible to contest the election.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned Law Officers and also gone through the record.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf' of respondent No.2 has been unable to substantiate his allegation that the appellant had sworn in any such affidavit. Adding that suffering from some payable dues disentitles the appellant to contest the election in question. Moreover the water rate or penalty payable were owed by the father of the appellant. In our opinion, the provisions of Article 63(l)(4) of the Constitution are otherwise. It is only the default in payment of the Government dues including the water-charges by the candidate himself which may render a candidate ineligible, which is not in the case in hand. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4-4-2013, passed by the Returning Officer is declared illegal and is set aside. Resultantly, the nomination papers of the appellant stand accepted. AG/M-135/L Petition accepted.