P L D 2003 Lahore 165 (PLP)
Rao TARIQ MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and
| Citation | P L D 2003 Lahore 165 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Conduct of General Elections Order Chief Executive's Order 7 of 2002‑‑‑ |
| Bench Members | M. Javed Buttar, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Rao TARIQ MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and |
| Primary Law | Conduct of General Elections Order [Chief Executive's Order 7 of 2002]‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2003 Lahore 165 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Conduct of General Elections Order [Chief Executive's Order 7 of 2002]‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2003 Lahore 165 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Conduct of General Elections Order Chief Executive's Order 7 of 2002‑‑‑ bench comprising: M. Javed Buttar, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2003 Lahore 165 (PLP) (Rao TARIQ MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Abdul Basit for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 8D(2)(o) & (g)‑‑‑Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S.14(5‑A) & 14(3)(c)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.114, 151 & O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review‑‑‑Rejection of nomination papers of the candidate for election to Provincial Assembly on the ground of his being defaulter of the Bank under the decrees‑‑‑High Court, under its Constitutional jurisdiction, had maintained the order of rejection of nomination papers‑‑‑Review of the High Court judgment was sought on the ground that the documents attached with the review petition were not available to the candidate at the time when the nomination papers were submitted‑‑‑Documents, in question, clearly revealed that the candidate had retired from the Directorship of the Company which had defaulted and had transferred his entire shareholding of the said Company and the candidate and other shareholders had settled the dispute with the Bank‑‑‑Candidate in circumstances, had contended that High Court had ample jurisdiction to look into the said documents specially the arrangements of rescheduling of the outstanding liabilities with the Bank‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, merely because the candidate had transferred his total shareholding of the Company; as was being asserted, did not absolve him of his liability under the decree which remained unsatisfied‑‑‑Candidate was a defaulter of a Bank loan by virtue of the decree passed against him and others in view of S.14(5‑A), Representation of the. People Act, 1976 read with S.14(3)(c) thereof‑‑ Candidate had to show that on the date of his nomination as a candidate he did not suffer from any disqualification‑‑‑Document sought to be considered in review petition was a letter of proposed arrangement from the Bank showing that the outstanding liability was to be cleared up to 30‑12‑2003‑‑ Unless the dues of the Bank were finally paid, the candidate continued to be a defaulter‑‑‑Candidate, in circumstances, was seeking the rehearing of the matter on the basis of the documents which were not even filed with the record of the Constitutional petition under review‑‑‑Scope of review being very narrow, High Court dismissed the petition in circumstances. Haji Nawab Din v. Qazi Abdul Saeed 1973 SCMR 143; Muhammad Zafar Ullah Khan v. Muhammad Khan and another 1975 SCMR 473 and Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Syed Alim Hussain and others 1975 SCMR 16 ref. Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zaffar, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan.
Judgment & Decree
1. "That the appellant is a defaulter of the National Bank of Pakistan against whom and his company M/s. Rao Associates (Pvt.) Limited, two Execution Petitions in the Banking Court, Bahawalpur, for recovery of outstanding debts/decretal amount of Rs.3,900,000 in addition to mark‑up from the date of institution till realization of the entire decretal amount are pending.
2. That the appellant teas now approached the Bank for payment of the entire decretal amount and has promised to pay the same in following manner: A Rs.250,000 shall be paid on 10‑9‑2002 before 9‑00 a.m. B Rs.1,050,000 to be paid up to 3‑10‑2002. C Rs.600,000 each to be paid on 31‑12‑2002, 30‑3‑2003, 30‑6‑2003. D Rs.600,000 along with 50% of remaining entire calculated mark -up according to decree to be paid on 30‑9‑2003. E Rs.600,000 along with 50% of remaining entire calculated mark‑up in addition to cost of the suit etc. for final adjustment of the decretal amount to be paid on 30‑12‑2003.
3. That the appellant has given additional properties to the Bank as security for repayment of the entire decretal amount.
4. That the higher authority of the Bank has agreed to accept the above repayment schedule subject to its strict compliance. "
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid document reveals that the petitioner is a defaulter as the liabilities against the petitioner in terms of the decree which remain unsatisfied. The petitioner is a defaulter of a bank loan by virtue of the decree gassed against him and others in view of section 14(5A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 read with section 14(3)(c) of the said Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had to show that on the date of his nomination as a candidate he did not suffer from any disqualification. According to said letter of the Bank, the outstanding liability is to be cleared up to 30‑12‑2003 and unless the dues of the Bank are finally paid, the petitioner continues to be a defaulter. Even otherwise the said letter is a proposed arrangement which has yet to ripen in the shape of a formal agreement between the parties. According to this document a down payment of Rs.2,50,000 was to be made on 10‑9‑2002. The petitioner has not adduced any document to show that the down payment has been made by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner seeks rehearing of the matter on the basis of the documents which were not even filed on the record of the writ petition. The scope of the review is very narrow as per principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the following judgments:‑‑ (1) Haji Nawab Din v. Qazi Abdul Saeed (1973 SCMR 143). (2) Muhammad Zafar Ullah Khan v. Muhammad Khan and another (1975 SCMR 473).
3. Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Syed Alim Hussain and others. (1975 SCMR 16).
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Review petition, the same is dismissed. M.B.A./T‑111/L Petition dismissed.