2017 PLP 375 (YLRN)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through captioned Constitutional Petition, petitioner Nanikram son of Balo Meghwar has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and prayed to set-aside impugned order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the Returning Officer, accepting the nomination papers of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 as well as order dated 13.08.2016, passed by the Appellate Authority, and also declare that respondent No.4 Faiz Muhammad is not eligible candidate for reserved seat of labour.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that respondent No.4 purportedly has been declared as Member of the Reserved Seat for Labour from Town Committee Diplo Town, Taluka Diplo, District Tharparkar and contested the election for the post of Vice Chairman for Town Committee Diplo; that petitioner had filed nomination form for the post of General Member, Ward No.2 of Town Committee Diplo but subsequently, on 13.10.2015, he withdrawn his nomination form. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.4 Faiz Muhammad filed his nomination papers for the seat of Vice Chairman for Town Committee Diplo, which were accepted by the Returning Officer, despite of raising objections by the petitioner; that respondent No.4 has not been eligible for the post of Vice Chairman for the reserved seat of peasant as he himself admitted that he retired as a government employee, besides he is regular pension holder. Learned Counsel further contended that petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the acceptance of nomination papers, filed appeal under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 18 of Sindh Local Councils (Elections) Rules, 2013 but the Appellate Authority dismissed said appeal without considering the material available on record properly and maintained the acceptance of nomination papers of respondents; that respondent No.3 did not allow the petitioner to raise objection on the nomination papers of private respondents and he was condemned unheard, which is contrary to the law. Learned Counsel further urged that respondent No.4 is a retired Supervisor of Education Department in BPS-16 and drawing pension of Rs.28,000/- monthly, therefore, he is not eligible for the reserved seat of Labour for Town Committee Diplo; that according to the form of declaration of assets, respondent No.4 is owner of agricultural land admeasuring 3-30 acres, which has also disqualified him for the reserved seat of Labour, hence respondent No.4 is not eligible for the seat of Vice Chairman of Town Committee Diplo; that respondents Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the factual position while passing impugned orders and even petitioner was not allowed by Returning Officer to raise objections either orally or in writing, which is against the law, hence acceptance orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 being unlawful are liable to be set-aside.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh contended that petitioner did not file any objection against the nomination forms submitted by respondents Nos.4 and 5 and the Returning Officer after proper scrutiny of nomination papers, had accepted the same; that petitioner also did not file any objection against respondent No.4 at the time of filing of nomination papers for the seat of Labour before the Returning Officer nor filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, thus contentions raised by the petitioner are not worth considerable.

4. Mr. Muhammad Meean Bajeer, Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.5, which is taken on record and he further submits that he will file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4 in office. Learned Counsel for respondents Nos.4 and 5 adopted the arguments advanced by learned A.A.G., Sindh and further contended that petitioner has no locus standi to file instant petition as he is not an aggrieved person and has failed to point out infringement of his any fundamental right.

5. Heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reflects that petitioner at the first instance filed his nomination form for the seat of General Member for Ward No.2 of Town Committee Diplo but subsequently, he withdrawn his nomination papers. Thereafter Election Commission vide Notification dated 28.07.2016, has announced the schedule for filing of nomination forms for the seat of Chairman/Vice Chairman in District Council, Municipal Committee and Town Committees and the scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed from 08.08.2016 to 10.08.2016 by the Returning Officer, but the petitioner neither filed any objections before the Returning Officer nor resisted said nomination of forms at the time of its scrutiny, therefore, Returning Officer after conducting proper scrutiny accepted the nomination papers of Mohanlal and Faiz Muhammad for the seat of Chairman/Vice Chairman respectively. Similarly, petitioner also did not file any objection against respondent No.4 at the time of filing of nomination papers for the seat of Labour before the Returning Officer on 10.05.2016 and 11.05.2016. Indeed, petitioner himself is not participating in the election of Chairman/Vice-Chairman nor has filed any documentary proof to prime facie establish that he had filed any objections or appeared before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny and even he has not filed any documentary proof as to when respondent No.4 has retired from his alleged service. In absence of any document in proof, petitioner has filed the election appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was properly heard and after considering the factual as well as legal aspect of the controversy, the same was dismissed vide impugned order.

6. For the foregoing facts and reasons, we are of the view that neither petitioner is an aggrieved person nor he has any locus standi to file instant petition to challenge the nomination forms filed by respondents Nos.4 and 5 for the seat of Chairman/Vice Chairman, hence order passed by the Returning Officer for acceptance of nomination forms of respondents Nos.4 and 5 which was maintained by the Appellate Authority do not call for any interference. Consequently, instant petition, being devoid of any legal substance, stands dismissed. These are the reasons for short order dated 23.08.2016, whereby instant petition was dismissed by us. ZC/N-50/Sindh Petition dismissed.