2006 PLP 1950 (YLR)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has voiced his grievance against the rejection by Returning Officer on 24-7-2005. The objections on the nomination papers pertaining to his misdeclaration of the assets by respondents Nos.3 and

4. The appeal against the order was dismissed on 27-7-2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the declaration of the assets has not been filed correctly by respondents Nos.3 and

4. He has referred to page 3 of the nomination papers wherein the relevant portion of the printed form has been left blank. The form has been signed by two persons jointly but the declaration of assets of respondent No.4 only is mentioned. There is no declaration on the part of respondent No.3, while the law requires separate declaration. He has referred to the impugned order of Returning Officer, wherein the Returning Officer has held that non-submission of separate prescribed form, qua the declaration of the assets, is irregularity and not illegality and nomination papers cannot be rejected on mere technicalities. He has referred to the cases of "Abbas Khan v. Appellate Authority" 2002 SCMR 398; "Syed Abdu Zar Hussnain Bokhari v. Returning Officer" 2001 CLC 911 and "Samu Khan v. Returning Officer" 2001 CLC 1246 to contend that concealment of assets entails penal consequences of disqualification.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted the affidavit of Muhammad Anwar as well as Tahir Mahmood Anwar to the effect that property measuring 7 Kanals and 11 Marlas, in Mauza Dhullah Arain Urban Gujranwala, situated on main G.T. Road, though vests in the name of respondent No.4, yet as a result of family settlement, has been given to Meher Muhammad Baber. He has also placed on record the agreement to sell dated 28-3-2005 evidencing the sale of shop by Tahir Mahmood Anwar. It was then contended that according to the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and the Rules thereunder, the candidate has to declare the assets which he possesses. Respondent No.4 does not possess any asset and that is why he has not declared the assets in his name.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

5. The Returning Officer as well as the District Returning Officer, have held that non-mention of the detail of the property in the declaration of assets is an irregularity and not illegality. While holding so the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court "Abbas Khan v. Appellate Authority 2002 SCMR 398 has been ignored, wherein the apex Court has held that the candidate is obliged to disclose all his assets in "declaration of assets form". The omission is certainly fatal and in case A of variance, the candidate is not qualified to be elected as member of the Local Government. This view is further supported by the decisions of the superior Courts in the cases of "Syed Abdu Zar Hussnain Bokhari v. Returning Officer" 2001 CLC 911 and "Samu Khan v. Returning Officer" 2001 CLC 1246. Thus there is no cavil with the proposition that the misdeclaration of the assets or omission to declare assets entails penal consequences of disqualification.

6. Reverting back to the declaration of assets by the respondents Nos.3 and 4, it is evident that the declaration has not been filled, completed and signed by the respondents, separately and in accordance with law. Leaving all the issues aside, respondent No.4 has placed on record an agreement to sell wherein a sum of Rs.8,00,000 (rupees eight lac only) has statedly been statedly received by respondent No.4 from Muhammad Salem son of Muhammad Sharif the vendee. Another amount of Rs.5,00,000, was received subsequentlt on 28-6-2005, at the time when the period for completion of sale was extended to 10-8-2005. Respondent No.4 has not made the declaration of Rs.13,00,000 received in respect of sale of the Property No.BXXVI-6S-5/9 in Mohallah Aram Basti Gujranwala. Additionally the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 that the objection with regard to joint declaration has not been raised before the I Returning Officer, is not well founded, for the perusal of the impugned orders reveals that these objections were taken at the relevant time.

7. For the foregoing, reasons the instant petition is allowed, respondents Nos.4 and 5 are declared disqualified to be elected or to hold an elective office or membership of local government in view of provisions of section 152(1)(i) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, resultantly their nomination papers stand rejected. F.B./M-239/L Petition allowed.