2002 PLP 2344 (YLR)
Brig. (Retd.) FARRAKH HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2344 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Javed Buttar, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Brig. (Retd.) FARRAKH HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2344 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2344 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Javed Buttar, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2344 (YLR) (Brig. (Retd.) FARRAKH HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Qamar Afzal, Qazi Misbah‑ul- Hassan and Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.
- Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zafar, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
- 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits, that undisputedly, as a result of the default of the firm and its partners the Habib Bank Limited has already filed a suit to claim an amount of Rs.12,13,05,879 against the firm and its partners including the petitioner and his wife and, therefore, the petitioner is a defaulter of bank loan.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Nomination papers, rejection of‑‑‑Default of Bank loan‑‑‑Determination of liability ‑‑ Pendency of recovery suit filed by Bank‑‑ Candidate had himself stated in the column of liability that an amount of Rs.4 crores was outstanding against him and his wife‑‑ Returning Officer accepted nomination papers of the candidate but on appeal filed by a voter, Appellate Tribunal rejected the papers of the candidate on the ground of default‑‑ Plea raised by the candidate was that by mere pendency of recovery suit filed by Bank, the candidate could not be held to be a Bank defaulter‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Copy of plaint in the suit filed by Bank showed that the firm of the candidate and his partners were in persistent default necessitating filing of suit by Bank‑‑ In affidavit attached with the nomination papers, the candidate made mis‑statement that no loan exceeding Rs.2 millions was outstanding against him or any concern mainly owned by him‑‑‑As there were six partners in the firm, the candidate and his wife would be deemed to mainly own the concern and that was the reason that out of total liabilities, the petitioner owned a liability of 33% against him and his wife‑‑‑In such case 67% of the liability would be that of four partners to the extent of 17% each‑‑ Candidate, in the present case, was not only a defaulter of the Bank loan but he made a false declaration in the nomination form‑‑ High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal‑‑ Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Munsaf Awan fox Respondent No. 2.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Munsaf Awan fox Respondent No.
2. The order dated 12‑9‑2002 of the Election Tribunal has been assailed in this petition which arises out of the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the Provincial Assembly from PP.22. Najaf Khan, respondent No.2, objected to his candidature on the ground that, the petitioner was a defaulter of a Bank loan. The nomination papers of the petitioner were, however, accepted vide order dated 2‑9‑2002. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal under rule 5 of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977. The learned Election Tribunal found that in the relevant column (of the nomination papers) the petitioner had admitted that an amount of rupees four crore was due to the Habib Bank Limited, from him and his wife. Accordingly, the appeal of respondent No.2 was allowed and the nomination papers were rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability was incurred by a registered firm known as S.K. Enterprises and he was only one of the six partners of the Firm. Therefore, he could not be said to be a defaulter of the Bank loan. It is further maintained that unless the suit filed by the Bank was adjudicated and liability of the petitioner determined he could not be said to be a defaulter of a Bank loan.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits, that undisputedly, as a result of the default of the firm and its partners the Habib Bank Limited has already filed a suit to claim an amount of Rs.12,13,05,879 against the firm and its partners including the petitioner and his wife and, therefore, the petitioner is a defaulter of bank loan.
5. The submissions made before us have been considered. As observed by the learned Election Tribunal, the petitioner had himself stated in the column of liability that an amount of Rupees 4 crores was outstanding against him and his wife's share. Copy of the plaint in the suit filed by Habib Bank Limited clearly shows that the firm: and his partners were in persistent default necessitating filing of the suit by the Bank. We have also noticed that in the affidavit attached with the nomination papers, the petitioner made a mis‑statement that no loan exceeding Rupees 2 millions was outstanding against him or any concern mainly owned by him. Since there are six partners in the firm, the petitioner and his wife shall be deemed to mainly own the said concern and that is the reason that out of the total liabilities of Rs.12,13,05,879, the petitioner owned a liability of Rupees 4 crore against him and his wife which is 33% of the total liability. In that ease 67% of the liability would be that of the other four partners to the extent of 17 each.
6. Not only the petitioner is a defaulter of the bank loan, he made a false declaration in the nomination form as noted above. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./F‑131‑L