2004 PLP 54 (MLD)

Rana Muhammad Zahid, Addl. A.‑G. Sajjad Hussain Shah and Masood Ahmad Khan for Respondent No.

1. RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.‑‑‑The appellant and respondent No. 1 are opposing candidates for N.A. 197 District Rahim Yar Khan. The appellant has filed instant appeal against the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer on 30‑8‑2002.

2. Mr. Farooq Amjad Mir, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondent No.1 has not filed declaration of his assets and liabilities ending on 30‑6‑2002 in accordance with law; that he was not present before the Returning Officer at the time of filing or scrutiny of nomination papers and same were forwarded through fax from abroad which mode is not recognized by law.

3. We have also received written objections by one Abdul Qadir Bursher through T.C.S. against the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.1 which are appended with this appeal. In the said objections, it has been asserted that respondent No. 1 is a defaulter and he has produced fake decree of a religious school where he has not studied at all; that he is a non‑matric and a police tout and people of the area are fed up from him.

4. We cannot go into the details of the objections, received through T. C. S. from afore‑mentioned Abdul Qadir Bursher. Even otherwise, he is not a contesting candidate and cannot file any appeal against the impugned order under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. With regard to the grounds, urged by the appellant, we find that he did not raise any written objection before the Returning Officer. Even no oral objection was raised there although their nomination papers were accepted on the same day. One Muhammad Anwar Bari submitted objection before the Returning Officer on 28‑8‑2002 which were withdrawn on 30‑8‑2002, so the nomination papers of respondent No.1 were accepted without any objection.

5. The claim of the appellant that respondent No.1 has not filed declaration of his assets and liabilities ending on 30‑6‑2002 in accordance with law and his nomination papers were not presented by him personally, in the absence of any objection by him before the Returning Officer, we are unable 'to hold an enquiry in this aspect of the case. Suffice it to observe that in these summary proceedings, we have to consider the qualification and disqualification of a candidate as incorporated in section 99 of the Representation of the

6. Respondent No.1 is present before us today and submits that he authorised his proposer to file nomination papers on his behalf and same were duly submitted before the Returning Officer, signed by him (respondent No. 1). We are unable to accept the objection of the appellant that the nomination papers of respondent No. 1 were received through Fax and not presented through proposer of the respondent. No material has been placed on record to substantiate the contention that the Returning Officer received the nomination papers through Fax and the same were not signed by the candidate/respondent No.1. The minor discrepancies which do not affect substantially nomination papers cannot be taken into consideration to oust a candidate. This is only a technical objection and the Returning Officer was justified to accept nomination papers of respondent No.1 as no objection was filed before him by any candidate or voter. The impugned order is in conformity with law and is not open to interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./A‑965/L Appeal dismissed.