2006 PLP 736 (YLR)

NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--Nomination papers of the petitioners for the seat of Nazim/Naib Nazim Union Council No.26, Urban Jahania District Khanewal had been rejected vide the impugned orders passed by the Returning Officer as well as the District Returning Officer.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. It is not denied at all that petitioner No.1 namely Mrs. Rubeena Wahla appended the declaration assets with her nomination papers without giving any detail rather the same (Annex shows that the word "NIL" has been written in each column. Whereas learned counsel for the contesting respondents have shown me a number of documents to establish that she is owner of valuable movable/immovable properties. On a Court question, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the properties owned by said petitioner No.1 is the subject matter of long litigation and a trust has been created with regard thereto. I asked to whether any trust deed could be shown, it is replied that trust is being proposed with reference to the said properties. I asked the said petitioner (present in the Court and duly identified by her learned counsel) as to what for she had written NIL in her declaration of assets particularly when in support thereof she had also given an affidavit, it is stated by her that she be allowed to file a fresh declaration of assets. I thought it may not be unjust if such a permission is granting now, but after giving a second thought, I am of the view that if I allow this request now, it means that I am promoting the practice of giving false affidavits. After all, an affidavit is a document which persuade us to believe that whatever has been stated in the appended/enclosed declaration of assets, is true. This being so, no indulgence can be shown.

4. Petitioner No.2 namely Khalid Javaid present in the Court and duly identified by his learned counsel) very frankly concedes that there are number of shares in his name which have not been mentioned in his declaration of assets appended with his nomination papers and it is not denied that he is the Chief Executive of a private firm in the name and style of "Top Green" but this fact was also not disclosed in his declaration of assets; it is also not denied that a sum of Rs.7,00,000 is outstanding against him on account of income tax, duly determined by the competent authority i.e. Income Tax Commissioner. However, it is stated by him that an appeal against the same is pending in the Income Tax Tribunal but no injunctive order has been issued.

5. Viewed from the above dimensions, I am constrained to hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief what to talk of an equitable relief under the Constitution. Even otherwise, the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. Hence, this petition stands dismissed. Copy Dasti. H.B.T./R-157/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.