2006 PLP 214 (CLC)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

The petitioner submitted nomination papers for the seat of General Councillor from U.C. No.3 Narowal City, to which no objection was raised. The learned Returning Officer of his own accord rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in the activities prejudicial to the society, peace and integrity of Pakistan and he is not qualified to contest the elections under section 152(1)(r) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Petitioner's appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the learned District Returning Officer, vide order dated 3-8-2005, hence the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no evidence is available on record to substantiate the allegations of involvement of the petitioner in anti-State, terrorist or and sectarian activities, thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. The learned Law Officer states that petitioner's name does not find mention in the list provided by D.P.O. Narowal, however, the list bears the name of the brother of the petitioner (Nazar Abbas).

3. Despite notice for today, none has entered appearance on behalf of the private respondents.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and upon the examination of the available record, I find that no prima facie evidence and material has been placed on record, either before the lower forums or even before this Court in order to demonstrate that the petitioner is involved in any activities prejudicial to the society, peace and integrity of Pakistan. It is not discernible from the available record that on the basis of which material, both the forums have held that the petitioner is involved in the activities prejudicial to the integrity of Pakistan. Both the forums have merely reproduced the provisions of section 152(1)(r) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Even the learned Law Officer could not properly support the impugned orders, except to state that the name of the brother of the petitioner find mention in the list prepared and supplied by the D.P.O. The petitioner cannot be ousted from the election process and deprived to contest the elections only on the ground that the name of petitioner's brother has been mentioned in the list prepared by the D.P.O. Even the said list is questionable.

5. In the above perspective. I am of the view that both the lower forums have committed grave legal errors in passing the impugned orders, inasmuch as the same were passed without any material on record, thus, I am inclined to set aside both the orders, which I hereby do.

6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is allowed and both the impugned orders are set aside with no order as to costs. Resultantly, petitioner's nomination papers stand accepted and he is allowed to contest the forthcoming Local Government elections. H.B.T./A-622/L Petition allowed.