2008 PLP 284 (YLR)

SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.

Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that respondent No.1 Syed Qalab Hussain Shah had filed his Nomination papers for contesting the forthcoming local bodies elections as Taluka Nazim, Rohri which were objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.1 had guaranteed loans extended to various persons by Habib Bank Limited, Rohri Branch which were still outstanding. Hence he was a wilful defaulter and consequently disqualified to contest the elections. The petitioner's contentions were rejected by the learned Returning Officer on the ground that per settled law a guarantor was not a borrower and hence could not be a wilful defaulter of an outstanding loan. In appeal before the learned District Returning Officer the petitioner remained unsuccessful as per the impugned order nothing was produced to show that the respondent No.1 was adjudged as wilful defaulter by any Court of law per the definition of said terms vide section 152(1)(j) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Hence the petition. In support of the petition Mr. Abdul Qadir Shaikh has submitted that admittedly the respondent No.1 guaranteed the loans of various persons which were disbursed by Habib Bank Limited and Allied Bank Limited as per the letters of such Banks filed before the learned Returning Officer and which were still outstanding. Consequently, the said respondent is a wilful defaulter as the liability of a guarantor/surety for returning the loan is the same as that of the principal debtor. Mr. Mukesh Kumar on the other hand submitted that the definition of a wilful defaulter as appearing in sec tion 152(1)(j) provides that he should be adjudged as such which means by a Court of law which is not the case at all. Secondly, learned counsel has submitted that per settled lacy a guarantor of a defaulting loan cannot be disqualified on this count. He has relied upon Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others (1994 SCMR 1299), Abdul Qudoos v. Arbab Ghulam Rahim (1994 CLC 1716) and Muhammad Yakoob v. Syed Noor Muhammad Shah (2001 YLR 944). Learned Addl. A.-G. and the learned D.A.G. have supported the arguments of Mr. Mukesh Kumar. We have heard both learned counsel as well as learned D.A.G. and learned Addl. A.-G. It would be seen that as per the definition contained in section 152(1)(j) of the Ordinance, a wilful defaulter has been described as a person who has been .adjudged as such of any tax or other financial dues owed to the Federal, a Provincial, or a Local Government or any financial institution, including utility bills outstanding for six months or more. In our opinion the word "adjudged" means by a court of competent jurisdiction. Admittedly, neither the respondent No.1 nor for that matter the principal debtor for whom said respondent may have been a guarantor has been so adjudged. Consequently, in our opinion the said respondent cannot be disqualified under the aforementioned provision of the Ordinance. Above are the reasons for the short order passed by us dismissing the Petition. S.A.K./E-5/K Petition dismissed.