2016 PLP 137 (CLCN)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.

The petitioner through instant petition seeks a declaration that the proceedings pending before the respondent No.1 on lapse of statutory timeline as provided under subsection (2) of section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, have become without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner being a returned candidate for National Assembly - 209 (NA-209) in the General Elections of 2013 was notified by the respondent No.1 on 22.05.2013. Per counsel the nomination of petitioner from NA-209 was previously challenged by one Mir Hassan Khoso before the concerned Returning Officer, who vide order dated 06.04.2013 accepted the petitioner's nomination and the said Mir Hassan Khoso being aggrieved with the order of Returning Officer preferred an appeal before the Election Tribunal at Sukkur and subsequently withdrew his appeal, which accordingly was dismissed on 15.04.2013. Per counsel, said Mir Hassan Khoso was runner-up, whereas respondent No.2, who has questioned the nomination of petitioner and on whose representation proceedings are being conducted by the Election Commission of Pakistan against the petitioner, secured only 125 votes. It is contended that after the General Elections of 2013 and issuance of Notification by the Election Commission of Pakistan declaring the petitioner as a returned candidate for NA-209, respondent No.2 filed a petition under the provisions of Section 103AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "ROPA 1976") before the respondent No.1 which under the spirit of section 103AA ought to have been completed within sixty-days after the petitioner was notified as returned candidate i.e. on or before 21.07.2013 and since it could not be concluded within the stipulated period provided under subsection (2) of section 103AA, therefore, the election of the petitioner has become final and the proceedings before the respondent No.1 have become coram non judice and be declared as such. It was next contended that the respondent No.1 has initiated the proceedings before the respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner has made a false declaration his nomination papers regarding his educational qualification and the objections of such nature could not be agitated under the provisions of section 103AA.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Kh. Shams-ul-Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 while inviting our attention to the nomination paper filed by the petitioner for the General Election of 2007, contended that the petitioner in the said election declared his educational qualification as "B.A." whereas in the nomination paper of the petitioner for the General Elections of 2013 petitioner declared his educational qualification as "Matric" and such contradiction was sufficient to assume that one of such declaration is false and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to contest the General Elections of 2013. Counsel further while inviting our attention to the order dated 06.04.2013 which record the defence of petitioner to the effect that, since in General Election 2013 there was no condition for a candidate to be a graduate, therefore, he mentioned his qualification as "Matric" pointed out that such plea was accepted by Returning Officer as the petitioner produced before him his 'B.A. degree" issued from University of Karachi. Per counsel, when the respondent No.3 questioned the issue of petitioner's qualification before the ECP and his "B.A." degree of Karachi University which he had produced before Returning Officer, the petitioner denied such degree and therefore, the Election Commission of Pakistan vide its Order dated 20.05.2013 allowed the Petitioner to produce his degree before the HEC, which was to scrutinize and verify his Karachi University degree and the degree, if any produced by him before HEC. Per counsel, the petitioner neither submitted his degree before HEC nor appeared before ECP and when the matter was taken up on 21.06.2013 the Commission after showing its displeasure on account of non-appearance of HEC sent certified copy of the petitioner's B.A. Degree from Karachi University, which was obtained by the respondent from the record of Returning Officer along with his nomination form for verification by HEC. Notice was also sent to the petitioner to place before the Election Commission of Pakistan any document to satisfy the commission that he was a graduate. Per counsel Petitioner has produced yet another forged degree from Federal Urdu University of Arts and Science issued on 05.04.2013 before this Court which degree according to the counsel prima facie appears to be forged as it contradict order dated 06.04.2013 of the Returning Officer which specifically records production of degree from "Karachi University". It is contended that since Pakistan People Party had formed its Government in the Province of Sindh, therefore, HEC under its influence did not submit report about the veracity of the petitioner's degree, consequently, the Election Commission of Pakistan vide its Order dated 03.07.2013 directed the Provincial Election Commission to obtain the original nomination form along with B.A. degree produced before him by the petitioner. Per counsel, again on 18.07.2013 when the matter was taken up request from Returning Officer was made for further time to produce nomination form along with the documents. Mr. Shams further invited our attention to Order dated 25.07.2013 of the Election Commission which says that the Returning Officer on the next date informed that the original nomination form of the petitioner was stolen away from his office and FIR has been registered, therefore, he is not in a position to submit the original nomination form including BA degree filed before the Returning Officer. The order further record that the Provincial Election Commission informed that the nomination paper of the petitioner have been posted to the Deputy Election Commission, Kandhkot which should be transmitted to Election Commission of Pakistan and the Commission directed to ensure its safe arrival. Counsel further invited our attention to the last order of the ECP passed on 15.08.2013 which reflects that the ECP after recording its displeasure on the non-cooperative attitude of the HEC directed its Chairman to take interest in fake degree cases and to ensure the presence of his counsel and concerned Assistant Director before the Court. Mr. Shams contended that since Pakistan Peoples Party had formed its government in the Province of Sindh, therefore, HEC in this matter was not taking interest in false degree cases of its MNAs and MPAs and petitioner being one of them. It was further contended that being beneficiary of such non-cooperative attitude of HEC, the petitioner now cannot turn around and plead that on account of lapse of time the ECP cannot proceed further. He asserts that even the second degree produced by the petitioner from Federal Urdu University before this Court after a lapse of one year is also fake.

4. Counsel while placing reliance on the case of Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz PLD 2010 SC 828 contended that the Supreme Court in the stated case observed that the parliament of the country was one of its noblest, honourable and important institutions, therefore, the persons who are not of good character, not honest or had indulged in corrupt practices during the course of elections, could not be allowed to pollute the clearness of these legislative institutions. It was therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

5. In rebuttal, Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan contended that the remedy provided by section 103-AA is in addition to the remedy provided by section 52 through which an election of the candidate could be challenged on the various grounds as detailed in section 68 of Act 1976. It was therefore, contended that the respondent has chosen a remedy which provides a time frame and consequences in case such time frame is not observed. In the instant case, such timeframe has not been observed, therefore, the consequences are to ensue and, therefore, the notification declaring the petitioner as a returned candidate has become final.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, minutely perused the record of the case and the case-law so cited.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner in the general elections of 2007 along with his nomination form submitted "Declaration on Oath" on 30.03.2013 wherein he stated his educational qualification as "B.A." and in 2013 General Election again he submitted "Declaration on Oath" on 30.03.2013 wherein he stated his educational qualification as Metric and this fact in our opinion is sufficient to establish that one of the declaration so made by the petitioner on oath is prima facie false and, therefore, the consequences for such false declaration under section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had to ensue.

8. It is also an admitted position on record that such contradiction was brought to the notice of returning officer by one Mir Hassan Khan Khoso by filing objection and the petitioner in response after explaining his position submitted his degree and the returning officer decided the objection through Order dated 06.04.2013. We without commenting upon the worth of explanation so offered or the order passed thereon by the Returning Officer simply reproduce the order of the Returning Officer:- "IN THE OFFICE OF RETURNING OFFICER NA-209-JACOBABAD-CUM; KASHMORE-(OLD JACOBABAD-ii) Nomination Form No. 10 Mr. Shabeer Ali Khan Bijarani .................. Candidate Versus Meer Hassan Khan Khoso ......................... Objector Constituency Name and No. NA-209-Jacobabad-Cum-Kashmore (Old Jacobabad-II) Mr. Sardar Khan Lashari advocate for the Objector Meer Hassan Khoso, candidate in person Dated 06.04.2013. ORDER SHEET The objections filed by the objector Meer Hassan Khan Khoso, the candidate submitted the B.A. degree with the submission that since he was under bona fide impression that the graduation degree is not mandatory for the forthcoming Election-2013, hence he has submitted Matriculation degree, while he has submitted degree issued from "UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI" with the statement along with his reply, the copy of the same is supplied to the learned counsel for the objector. In my humble opinion the submission raised by the candidate are considerable; hence the nomination form is hereby accepted. This dated 6th day of April 2013. Sd/- 06.04.2013 (Abdul Rasheed Shah) IInd. Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Returning Officer-NA-209 Jacobabad-Cum-Kashmor-(Old Jacobabad-II)"

9. Perusal of the above reproduced order clearly reflects that the petitioner had produced before the Returning Officer "Bachelor of Arts" degree which was issued from "University of Karachi" whereas the degree produced by the petitioner before us has been issued by the "Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology" on 05.04.2013. This degree reflects that the petitioner had passed "B.A." examination held in the year 2007 under Seat No.1882. However, if this degree was produced by the petitioner before the Returning Officer on 06.04.2013 then what made the Returning Officer to record in his order that the petitioner has produced degree issued from "University of Karachi". Though Mr. Khalid has halfheartedly tried to argue that "Urdu University" is also situated at Karachi therefore, the Returning Officer has in his order referred to the degree produced by the petitioner as degree from "University of Karachi". We never expected such na ve argument from Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan to equate a degree issued from "University of Karachi" with a degree issued by "Federal Urdu University". The degree of Federal Urdu University does not on its face anywhere narrate that Federal Urdu University is situated at Karachi. Even word "Karachi" is not written anywhere on the face of the degree. Beside, the degree now produced was issued on 05.04.2013 and the degree does not reflect that it is a duplicate copy then we wonder which degree the petitioner had produced before the Returning Officer along with his declaration filed on 25.11.2007 in General Elections of 2008.

10. In this backdrop, it is not very difficult to understand that why the certified copy of the petitioner's degree allegedly issued by "University of Karachi" under Seat No.43056 which according to the respondent, petitioner had submitted before the Returning Officer though denied by the petitioner) and as is evident from 06.04.2013 despite repeated requests was not verified by HEC. Perusal of various orders of ECP on record would reflect that this degree allegedly issued by "University of Karachi" in the name of petitioner under Seat No.43056 was sent by the Election Commission to HEC for verification, but they did not respond.

11. In this context it is also important to observe that the petitioner in the General Elections 2008 admittedly was contesting from PS-17 and NA-210 and has declared his qualification as "B.A." and to verify the degree submitted ECP called for the nomination papers of petitioner in respect of these constituencies and it is quite surprising that his nomination form and B.A. degree in respect of PS-17 were stolen from the office of Returning Officer, whereas the original nomination form and attested copy of B.A. degree in respect of NA-210 of the petitioner in respect of General Elections 2008 sent by District Election Commissioner Kashmor at Kandhkot vide Registry No.788 dated 23.07.2013 went missing. The annoyance of the ECP could be gauged from the fact that it directed registration of criminal case against the concerned four officials of Post-Office who were found responsible if the degree which the petitioner had submitted along with his nomination for the election of 2008 would have been received by the Election Commissioner, the entire controversy could have been resolved.

12. Additionally, perusal of various orders of the ECP would reflect that the absence and lack of interest in fake degree cases of HEC is deliberate and on account of such attitude of HEC the contention of Mr. Shams-u-Islam that after Pakistan Peoples Party had formed government in the Province of Sindh the HEC under the influence of the present government is deliberately not taking interest in the forged degree cases to the benefit of its representatives in view of the following observations of the ECP could not be simply brushed aside:- "The Higher Education Commission is conspicuous by its absence although notice was served to appear today with record in few other cases fixed for today. We have observed that despite warning HEC has left taking interest in the fake degree cases, whereas formerly it is used infuse in the proceedings before the Commission. Chairman, HEC should direct counsel Mr. Khichi and the concerned Assistant Director, who is in possession of the record to be present on 23rd August, 2013 at 10.00 A.M. positively." In this background two questions need to be answered; firstly, as to whether in the circumstances such controversy would not fall within the ambit of subsection (1) of section 103AA and, secondly, as to whether in the circumstances, the proceedings before the Election Commission of Pakistan after expiry of sixty-days in view of bar contained in subsection (2) of section 103AA of the Act 1976 automatically stood terminated. For the convenience provisions of section 103AA are reproduced hereunder:- "103AA. Power of Commission to declare a poll void

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act if, from facts apparent on the face of the record and after such summary inquiry as it may deem necessary, the Commission is satisfied that, by reason of grave illegalities or violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules, the poll in any constituency ought to be declared void, the Commission may make a declaration accordingly and, by notification in the official Gazette, call upon that constituency to elect a member in the manner provided for in section 108. (2) Notwithstanding the publication of the name of a returned candidate under subsection (4) of section 42, the Commission may exercise the powers conferred on it by subsection (1) before the expiration of sixty days after such publication; and, where the Commission does not finally dispose of a case within the said period, the election of the returned candidate shall be deemed to have become final, subject to a decision of a Tribunal. (3) While exercising the powers conferred on it by subsection (1), the Commission shall be deemed to be a Tribunal to which an election petition has been presented and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter VII, regulate its own procedure." Subsection (1) of section 103AA begins with non obstanate clause and, therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that such controversy could only be decided by the Tribunal through an election petition as provided under section 52 of the Act 1976 appears to be misconceived. In our opinion, all grave illegalities or violations of the Act 1976 or rules framed thereunder if apparent on the record and could be decided through a summary inquiry fall within the domain of the commission. The perusal of the above provisions of the Act would reflects that Election Commission of Pakistan is empowered to declare the poll void on account of grave illegalities or violation of the provisions of the Act 1976 or the rules made thereunder in all cases where such illegalities or violation of the provision of the Act 1976 or rules are apparent from the face of the record and the Commission could reach such conclusion after summary inquiry. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan further while stressing upon the word "summary inquiry" had questioned the jurisdiction of the commission by contending that giving finding on the genuineness or otherwise of the degree requires a full-dressed trial and that such controversy could not be decided in a summary inquiry. However, it has not been denied or even argued that submission of a forged degree or making a false declaration is not a grave illegality or violation of the provisions of the Act 1976 or the rules. Now in order to examine the contention of Mr. Khan, we would first ascertain the literal meaning of words "summary inquiry" and would then examine as to whether term "summary inquiry" could encompass the controversy in hand. Since these words are not found in the definition clause, therefore, we would resort to the dictionary meaning and or as these words are used in common parlance. Black's Law Dictionary in its Sixth Edition defines the word "summary" as short, concise, immediate, peremptory, off-hand, without a jury, provisional, statutory, in connection with legal proceedings means a shortcut, concise and immediate proceedings. Whereas the word "inquiry" has been defined as a "systematic investigation". Likewise, Chambers 21st Century Dictionary in its Revised Edition defines the word "summary" as an act or the process of asking for information and formal investigation, whereas the word "inquiry" has been defined as to pass a question to make an investigation, to make an examination. Judicial Dictionary in its 13th Edition defines the word "summary" as an abridgement, short and speedy, whereas defines word "inquiry" as legal proceedings in which facts are found on the basis of which liability or disability of a person is adjudged. It connotes an act of seeking truth, information or knowledge about something. Whereas the word "summary" has been defined in Concise Oxford English Dictionary in its Twelfth Edition as dispensing with needless details of formalities, a process conducted without the customary legal formality and defines word "inquiry" as an act of asking for information and/or official investigation.

13. Going through the meanings of the term "summary inquiry", as detailed in various dictionaries, in our opinion, it would encompass all controversies which could through abridged systematic investigation without a formal trial be resolved. In the instant case, the petitioner has provided a copy of his B.A. degree along with his nomination papers filed for PS-17 and NA-210 in the General Election 2008 and has also provided a copy of his B.A. degree from University of Karachi along with his statement after filing his nomination papers for Election 2013. Now it is only the submissions of those degrees by the Returning Officer to the Election Commission and then its verification from the University of Karachi. In the circumstances, we are of the view that nothing could be more appropriately determined in summary inquiry then the genuineness of the degree which only requires a verification from the concerned University, therefore, we hold that the controversy regarding genuineness or otherwise of a degree can very well be determined by the Election Commission of Pakistan by exercising its power under subsection (1) of section 103AA. Beside there is another angle of examining the controversy i.e. the petitioner admittedly in the declaration signed by him for the General Election of 2008 stated his qualification as "B.A" whereas in the declaration submitted along with his nomination form for the Election of 2013 stated his qualification as "Matric" and this mis-declaration is apparent on the face of record and does not require even a summary inquiry. The verification process of the degree appears to be the off shoot of mis-declaration.

14. Coming to the second portion of the controversy the record reflects that the nomination papers of the petitioner were accepted when he produced "B.A." degree obtained from "University of Karachi" and of course this degree was produced by the petitioner along with his nomination papers filed for PS-17 and NA-210 in respect of General Elections 2008. Petitioner despite direction has failed to produce his educational certificates before the ECP or HEC and now to our surprise has produced "B.A." degree from Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology with a halfhearted argument that Federal University of Arts, Sciences and Technology is also situated at Karachi, therefore, the Returning Officer recorded degree from "University of Karachi". It is also very strange to note that even this degree i.e. from Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology was not produced by the petitioner before Election Commission of Pakistan or Higher Education Commission despite various directions of the Election Commission of Pakistan. The petitioner even did not file this degree along with memo of petition and has now produced before us on 11.08.2014 after exactly one year of filing this petition.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Rizwan Gill (supra) referred by Mr. Shamsul Islam has very seriously taken note of submitting forged degree or making false statement on oath and had reiterated its previous verdict in the case of Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed (supra). We would reproduce paras 12 and 13 of the judgment as follows:- "

12. While dealing with the matter of Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed v. The Chief Election Commissioner and others Civil Petition No. 287 of 2008 decided on 25.3.2010 (PLD 2010 SC 817), this Court had highlighted the significance, the importance and the usefulness of the Legislative institutions of a country and hence, the dire need to protect their majesty, their dignity, their sanctity and their purity. Following is, what had been observed by this Court, through this judgment:-- 14. "The Parliament of any country is one of its noblest, honourable and important institutions making not only the policies and the laws for the nation but in fact, shaping and carving its very destiny. And here is a man who being constitutionally and legally debarred from being its member, managed to sneak into it by making a false statement on oath and by using bogus, fake and forged documents polluting the piety of this pious body. His said conduct demonstrates not only his callous contempt for the basic norms of honesty, integrity and even for his own oath but also undermines the sanctity, the dignity and the majesty of the said august House." It has been further observed through the said judgment that:- "Needless to add that the first and the most crucial step towards the attainment of the said commanded goal is to ensure that no person who was not constitutionally and legally qualified to contest any such election, was allowed to enter the arena."

13. And it was to preserve the pureness, the piety and the virtuousness of such-like eminent and exalted institutions that, inter alia Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and section 99 of the Representation of the People Act of 1976 had declared that, amongst others, the persons who were not of good character; who indulged in commission of major sins; who were not honest; who were removed, dismissed or compulsorily retired from service of Pakistan; who had obtained loans from banks and had not re-paid the same or who had indulged in corrupt practices during the course of elections, would not be allowed to pollute the clearness of these legislative institutions." In the light of the above observations of the Apex Court, we are of the view that the allegations are not only very serious but also not without substance and, therefore, ought to have been thoroughly scrutinized by the Election Commission. We therefore, without commenting on the genuineness or otherwise of the degree of Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology produced by the petitioner before us on 11.08.2014 or the B.A. degree from "University of Karachi" produced before the Returning Officer on 06.04.2013 when his nomination was accepted or the one produced along with his nomination paper for PS-17 and NA-210 for General Elections 2008, taking into account admitted mis-declaration direct the ECP to ensure that the piety of the pious body is not polluted. In our opinion the respondent has just brought to the notice of the Election Commission an illegality regarding the mis-declaration in the nomination form or submission of fake degree by the petitioner which appears to be quite serious. Now it was for the petitioner to appear before the Election Commission of Pakistan and to prove to the satisfaction of the Commission the genuineness of his degree and the reason for mis-declaration. However, perusal of the record i.e. order sheet of the Election Commission of Pakistan would reflect that the petitioner throughout has avoided either to effect appearance or to produce his educational testimonial, in fact minute perusal of the record in our opinion gives an adverse impression against the petitioner as throughout the proceedings he failed to meet the allegations. The controversy in our opinion at the most could have been determined within fifteen days if the petitioner would have voluntarily produced this degree before the Election Commission of Pakistan but on the contrary the petitioner neither filed a written response to the complaint before ECP nor despite his assurance to the ECP as appears from Order dated 20.05.2013 produced his degree before HEC and immediately after expiry of 60 days-invoked the provision of section 103-AA by moving an application before ECP on 25.07.2013. Time limit of 60 days in our opinion provided in subsection (2) of section 103-AA of course is for the benefit of the returned candidate and is to ensure that the proceedings against the returned candidate which are summary in nature should not be dragged beyond a period of 60 days and also that thereafter remedy is available under section 52 of the Representation of People Act, 1976.

16. However, in the instant case beside allegedly producing forge degree the petitioner has also made false declaration and what is established from the record is mis-declaration made by the petitioner in his nomination form and such act committed by the petitioner squarely falls under clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 78 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 and in similar circumstances the Apex Court in the case of Mian Najeebud-Din Owaisi v. Aamir Yar and 7 others (2011 SCMR 180) where the election of the returned candidate to the Parliament was challenged on the ground that he had produced bogus B.A. degree, but the election petition was dismissed on the ground that the annexures were not attested as required under section 55(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 and the Apex Court without setting aside the order of the Tribunal while observing that a person who offered himself for an election for the seat of the Parliament and/or provincial assembly so to represent electoral of his own constituency was required to fulfill qualification as laid down under Article 62 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and that he should not suffer from any disqualification as envisaged under Article 63 of the Constitution held that the matter was required to be dealt with by the Chief Election Commissioner in accordance with the provision of section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. It is important to note that such directions were issued by the Apex Court on 02.07.2010 after expiry of more than two years of the period provided in section 103AA(2) of Act 1976. The relevant observations are reproduced:- "

6. A person who offers himself for an election for the seat of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly so to represent elections of his own constituency is required to fulfill the qualification as laid down under Article 62 of the Constitution and that he shall not suffer from any disqualification as envisaged under Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Thus, while submitting nomination paper in Form-I under rule 3 of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977, he makes a declaration. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced as under:- "Declaration and oath by the person nominated.

1. I, the above mentioned candidate, hereby declare on oath that:-- (i) I have consented to the above nomination and that I fulfill the qualifications specified in Article 62 of the Constitution and I am not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 63 of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force for being elected as a member of the National Assembly/ Provincial Assembly". (ii) ....................................................................... Similarly, under section 12(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, every nomination filed by a candidate shall accompany the following declaration:-- (a) a declaration that he has consented to the nomination and that he fulfills the qualifications specified in Article 62 and is not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 63 or any other law for the time being in force for being elected as Member."

7. This Court prior to the instant case in an identical matter in the case of Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad v. Chief Election Commissioner and others (C.P. No.287 of 2008 decided on 25th March, 2010) and in C.A. No. 409 of 2010 filed under section 67 of the ROPA against the judgment dated 28th May, 2010 passed by Election Tribunal, Lahore has made the following observation:-- "

12. While dealing with the matter of Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad v. The Chief Election Commissioner and others (Civil Petition No.287 of 2008 decided on 25.3.2010), this court had highlighted the significance of a country and hence the dire need to protect their majesty, their dignity, their sanctity and their purity. Following is what had been observed by this Court, through this judgment: "

14. The Parliament of any country is one of its noblest, honourable and important institutions making not only the policies and the laws for the nation but in fact shaping and serving its very destiny. And here is a man who being constitutionally and legally debarred from being its member, managed to sneak into it by making a false statement on oath and by using bogus, fake and forged documents polluting the piety of this pious body. His said conduct demonstrates not only his callous contempt for the basic norms of honesty, integrity and even for his own oath but also undermines the sanctity, the dignity and the majesty of the said august House."

8. In instant case we are of the opinion, that in view of given facts and circumstances of the case which have been reproduced hereinabove prima facie, it appears that the matter is required to be dealt with by Chief Election Commissioner in accordance with the provision of section 78 of the ROPA, 1976 etc. details of which have already been mentioned in above judgment. Therefore, in discharge of our constitutional and legal duty, we direct the Chief Election Commissioner to proceed accordingly against respondent No.

1. Aamir Yar following the observations already made in the judgment."

17. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition fails, let the Chief Election Commissioner proceed against the petitioner Mir Shabbir Ali Bijarani for making a false declaration in accordance with section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. MH/M-187/Sindh Petition dismissed.