2002 PLP 424 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11‑6‑2001 of the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court. Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi whereby earlier order passed on 5‑6‑2001 by the District Judge/D.R.O., Election Appellate, Authority, Attock was set aside and nomination papers filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 were held in order.

2. Facts briefly are that one Muhammad Akram who is not a party in this petition was proposer of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in Local Bodies Election. He himself was a candidate for the seat of 'Nazim'. However, before the scrutiny of the nomination papers, he made an application on 2‑6‑2001 to the Returning Officer/respondent No.2 for the withdrawal of his nomination paper. The scrutiny was conducted on 3‑6‑2001 and the Returning Officer, instead of allowing him to withdraw his nomination paper, rejected the same. Since Muhammad Akram was also proposer of respondents Nos.3 and 4, their nomination papers were also rejected on the said date. The respondents challenged this order before District Judge/D.R.Q., who vide his order dated 5‑6‑2001 upheld the order of rejection of nomination papers. Respondents filed a Constitutional petition, which was accepted through impugned order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Muhammad Akram, the proposer of respondents Nos.3 and 4, could not have withdrawn his nomination paper without complying with the provision of Rule 20 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, whereby only a validly nominated candidate had been empowered to withdraw his candidature. Since Muhammad Akram's nomination papers were not accepted as such in view of Clause (xxvi) of Rule 2 of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 he was not validly nominated candidate. Another argument has been advanced that Muhammad Akram was a blackmailer. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with the petition. We have asked the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to point out any restraint/embargo either under the law or to the Rules for a candidate to withdraw his nomination paper before scrutiny. He could not point out one. Since Muhammad Akram withdrew his candidature prior to the scrutiny as such the same would not come into his way in proposing the respondents Nos.3 and

4. As far as the plea of blackmailing is concerned, the same has not been substantiated. The respondents were not confronted with the alleged secret report. Resultantly, finding no force in this petition, we dismiss it and leave to appeal is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑282/S Petition dismissed.