1994 PLP 499 (MLD)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.

This case was called many times since morning. Despite that neither the counsel for the appellant nor the appellant or anybody else appeared on his behalf. It is 1 pan. Although the appeal is liable to be dismissed in default for non-appearance yet we have considered the merits of the appeal on the basis of contentions raised in the memo. of appeal.

2. The objection of the appellant that the respondent had not deposited the security amount on 29-8-1993, when he had presented the nomination papers stands repelled in view of the stance taken by respondent and the statement made by Nazir Ahmed Reader of Mirza Rafiuz Zaman, Civil Judge/Returning Officer, that the amount of Rs.4,000 was paid by the respondent to the Returning Officer, when he had presented the nomination papers. Nazir Ahmad stated that receipt was issued to the respondent and the counterfoil is available in the office of the Returning Officer.

3. The next contention of the appellant, that the respondent had become a candidate at the instance of one Nazar Muhammad Gondal, who wanted some body to become a covering candidate, apprehending that he might be disqualified to contest the election as a defaulter and so the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination papers of the respondent who himself was not fully willing to contest the election as he had filed the nomination papers for election from PP-100 also, in our view, does not possess substance as there is no bar for contesting election from PP and NA both. Even if respondent No.1 was a covering candidate that does not make the impugned order unlawful. The only responsibility of the Returning Officer was that he should see whether papers were in order and the candidate was not disqualified for any other reason. There is no evidence that the respondent was not a willing candidate. He had signed the nomination papers by accepting the proposal. Next objection raised by the appellant was that respondent was a defaulter. He had failed to prove the same before the Returning Officer and none came up before us to prove that contention. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. Soon after the dictation was finished, learned counsel for respondent intervened to state that the appellant had not raised any objection at the time of acceptance of nomination papers and so he was not competent to file the appeal. Be that as it may, we find nothing to effect any change in the impugned order. H.B.T./100/E Appeal dismissed.