1997 PLP 1628 (CLC)

JUSTICE MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA (MEMBER).‑‑This appeal was accepted through short order dated 6‑1‑1997. The detailed reasons for the same are as given below:‑‑

2. This appeal is directed against the acceptance of the nomination papers of respondent No.l to contest the National Assembly Election from N.A.80, Gujrat.

3. Mr. M.Saleem Sahgal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that Ch. Tajammal Hussain (respondent No. l) is President of the National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation. This Corporation received deposits from the public but failed to return the same, on account where of it was declared undesirable under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution Act), 1993. The precise contention is that deposits of its depositors were not returned by the Corporation and respondent No. l being its Director/President could not be said to be Ameen within the meaning of Clause (f) of Article 62 and thus he is not qualified to contest the election for membership of the Parliament. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Election Tribunal in Dilawar Mahmood v. Babu Muhammad Munir and another 1994 MLD 415, whcih was,upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court and C.P. No.452/453 of 1993.

4. On the other hand. Mian Saqib Nisar, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. l has submitted that respondent No. l was only the President of the Corporation and Ch. Abdul Majid being the Chief Executive was exclusivel3 controlling and regulating the business of the N.I.C.F.C., therefore, his client cannot be held responsible for anything done by the Corporation. It is further submitted that respondent No. l did not receive any deposit personally or through his agent or servant from any person and. therefore. for anything done in or by the Corporation, he cannot be held responsible. He has further argued that the N.I.C.F‑C. is in a position to pay back its liabilities. Lastly, he has argued that the Act I of 1993 under which these cooperative societies have been declared undesirable was declared to be ultra vires by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court.

5. The case of Babu Muhammad Munir (supra) ‑was decided by the then Election Tribunal comprising of three learned Judges of the High Court. Babu Muhammad Munir was the Director of Pasban Cooperative Society which was declared undesirable by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under Act 1 of 1993. He filed nomination papers to contest election of the Punjab Provincial Assembly from Constituency PP‑

90. His nomination papers were accepted against which his opposing candidates filed appeals before the learned Election Tribunal. The Pasban Cooperative Society was also declared Undesirable Society under the Act, 1993 and exactly the same objection to the acceptance of the nomination was taken as has been done before us in respect of respondent No.

1. The learned Tribunal held that Babu Muhammad Munir, the Director of the Cooperative Society was disqualified to contest the election. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal are reproduced below:‑‑ "It is a fact publicly known that all Cooperative Societies including the Pasban Cooperative Society, of which the respondent was a Director, had been working like banks and receiving deposits by opening regular accounts. We, therefore, find no difficulty in observing that the Promoters, Directors and the shareholders of the Societies, including the one of which the respondent was a Director, were the trustees and Ameens of the deposits. The fact that Pasban Cooperative Society stopped functioning and the fact that it was declared Undesirable, shows that the Directors and other shareholders had failed to discharge their responsibility of returning the deposits to their customers and thus had proved themselves to be unreliable trustees and Ghair Ameens. Sub‑clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 reads as follows:‑‑ '(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non‑profligate and honest and Ameen.' The condition laid down for qualifications to contest election, in the above clause stands incorporated also in clause (f) of subsection (1) of section 99 of the Representation of People Act, 1976. Since the respondent had failed to discharge the responsibility of Ameen, he stands disqualified from contesting election to the Assembly. His nomination papers were, therefore, accepted unlawfully and wrongly. As such both the appeals are allowed. The nomination papers of the respondent shall be deemed to have been rejected."

6. The order passed by the learned Election Tribunal was further challenged through Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.452 and 453 of 1993 but the same were dismissed by a five‑Member Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, it is not possible for this Tribunal to take a different view. The facts and circumstances involved in the present case are identical to the case of Babu Muhammad Munir (supra). Resultantly, the respondent No. l is found to be not an Ameen within the meaning of Article 62 of the Constitution, and hence he is not qualified to contest the election for the National Assembly. A.A./154‑EP/L Appeal accepted.