2006 PLP 1405 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.500 and 519 of 2006, as common questions are involved. Relevant facts are as follows: Writ Petition No.500 of 2006

2. The petitioners and the private respondents contested elections to the seats of Nazam and Naib Nazam in UC-34-Multan. The petitioners were declared returned. In the first instance, respondents Nos.5 and 6 filed Writ Petition No.5100 of 2005 in this Court challenging the election of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner No.1 was not holding the requisite educational qualification and "Sanad Shahadat-ul-Sanvia-tul-Alma" is not equivalent to matric. This writ petition was allowed on 25-8-2005. An ICA was allowed and the writ petition was ordered to be reheard. Upon rehearing, writ petition was disposed of on 20-10-2005 with the direction to the learned Election Tribunal to first take up the issue of qualification as a preliminary issue and to decide the same on or before 31-1-2006. The Election petition filed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 was accordingly allowed vide judgment dated 31-1-2006. Writ Petition No.519 of 2006

3. The writ petitioners and the private respondents contested elections to the seats of Nazam and Naib Nazam in UC-43 Multan. The petitioners were declared returned. In the first instance, respondents Nos.5 and 6 filed Writ Petition No.5163 of 2005 in this Court. It was pointed out that an election petition has already been filed. This writ petition was disposed of with direction to the learned Election Tribunal to treat the same matter of educational qualification as preliminary issue and to decide the matter on or before 31-1-2006. Vide judgment dated 31-1-2006 learned Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the fact that the said matter had been treated as a preliminary issue, learned Election Tribunal could not have decided the same without conducting a full dressed trial and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

5. I have examined the copies of records in both these cases. There is no denial that the said respective petitioners in these cases are holding said Sanads respectively. Both the Sanads came for discussion in the case "Sanaullah Khan and others v. District Returning Officer, Mianwali and others" PLD 2005 SC 858 and while interpreting the term "Equivalence" it was observed as follows:-- "A perusal of above definitions of word "equivalence" makes it abundantly clear that a "Sanad" holder should possess academic qualification having the same value as that of Matriculation Certificate. A "Sanad" cannot be considered equivalent to a Matriculation Certificate unless an equivalence certificate has been obtained from the IBCC. As discussed above the IBCC will issue equivalence certificate if a candidate has passed additional examination of English, Urdu and Pakistan Studies at SSC or HSSC level from AIOU/Boards of Pakistan. Admittedly the petitioners have not passed the examination of these subjects from any of these institutions. As such, the argument of the learned counsel has no substance." I called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate as to whether there is an allegation in the reply filed by his clients to the election petition or in the present writ petition that have passed the said additional subjects and that they are holding an equivalence certificate issued either by HEC or by IBCC as held in para. 23 of the said judgment. Answer is in the negative. This being so, there being no plea, there is no question of evidence being led in support of the same. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-35/L Petition dismissed.