2006 PLP 797 (YLR)

NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.--As per averments incorporated in this constitutional petition as well as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the nomination papers had been filed by the petitioners for the seats of Nazim/Naib Nazim, Union Council No.20, Tehsil and District Lodhran on 20-7-2005 and scrutiny of the same was conducted on 23-7-2005. Muhammad Fayyaz, Petitioner No.1 had also submitted joint candidature as Naib Nazim with Amir Sohail, candidate for Nazim. This set of nomination papers had been withdrawn on 23-7-2005 but nomination papers of the petitioners for the seat of Nazim/Naib Nazim, respectively were also shown to have been, "rejected as withdrawn" vide order of the Returning Officer dated 23-7-2005. This fact had come to the knowledge of the petitioners when they approached the Returning Officer on 29-7-2005 for allocation of election symbols. Immediately they moved an application to the Returning Officer on 30-7-2005 bringing to his notice, the foul play committed by the rival contestants with a specific plea that they had never appointed Rao Muhammad Ramzan as their agent for the purpose of withdrawing their nomination papers (joint candidature for the seat of Nazim/Naib Nazim). This application was dismissed by the Returning Officer vide his order dated 30-7-2005. Hence, this constitutional petition has been filed to challenge the same.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. On 2-8-2004, 1 had passed the following order:-- "Normally, the matters as in the instant case relating to factual inquiry are not probed through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. However, for the averments made in this petition supported by an affidavit, I am inclined to direct respondent No.4 to appear in this Court tomorrow. His service shall be effected through the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, Office shall also requisition the record relating to the nomination papers of the petitioners."

4. Rao Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate, present in the Court, states that he had been appointed by the petitioners as their agent for the purpose of withdrawing their joint candidature. Adds that he was also appointed as an agent by Muhammad Fayyaz, petitioner No.1 and Amir Sohail (who had submitted their joint candidature for Naib Nazim/Nazim respectively) for the purpose of withdrawing their candidature. On 23-7-2005 having been equipped with the authority for withdrawing the nomination papers of both these two sets, he had requested the Returning Officer to withdraw the nomination papers. Consequently, nomination papers of both these sets of candidates including the petitioners were rejected as withdrawn. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners offered that this statement if given by the said Advocate on Holy Book of Qura'an, there will be no objection to the dismissal of this constitutional petition. Rao Muhammad Ramzan, an. Advocate of Lodhran states at the bar that he had been given the authority by the petitioners as well as Amir Sohail for withdrawing their candidature. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is not sufficient to repel the allegation of the petitioners who are ready to take oath on the Holy Book of Qura'an that they had never appointed the said learned counsel as their agent for the purpose of withdrawing their nomination papers. I believe that the learned counsel when makes a statement at the bar, same should be taken to be correct on the touchstone of well settled traditions and norms of legal practice. Even then, I asked the said learned counsel as to whether he would repeat his statement after reciting "Kalma". He repeated his statement after reciting the "Kalma", so, I have no option to disbelieve him.

5. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the authority letter allegedly given by the petitioners to the said learned counsel did not bear their signatures and a comparison of the same with their admitted signatures on their Identity Cards and the nomination papers would endorse this position. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact, this evil design was prepared to get the rival contestants elected unopposed and master mind behind the same was Izat Javaid, "Ring Leader of the opposite group of the petitioners" whose servant namely Zameer Hussain had purchased the stamp papers whereupon the alleged authority on behalf of the petitioners was written, however, on a Court question, it is stated by the learned counsel that previously Izat Javaid was the chief supporter and leader of the group of the petitioners upon whose asking petitioners and Amir Sohail had submitted the nomination papers in the capacity of joint candidature for the seat of Nazim/ Naib Nazim but who by way of somersault had joined the rival contestant to oust the petitioners from the arena of election. It is specifically contended by the. learned counsel that not only the affidavits of the petitioners on the stamp papers purchased by Zameer Hussain, a servant of said Izat Javaid but also on the authority letter allegedly given by them to Rao Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate are not similar with those of available on the Identity Cards as well as on the nomination papers of the petitioners.

6. At this stage, my attention has been drawn to a very material and significant aspect of the matter i.e. there were four sets of candidates for the seat of Nazim/Naib Nazim of the said Union Council which is as under: (A) (i) Afraz Ahmad Nazim (ii) Muhammad Asif Naib Nazim This candidature is still in the field as the nomination papers have been accepted. (B) (i) Amir Sohail Nazim (ii) Muhammad Yousaf Naib Nazim. Their candidate was withdrawn on 25-7-2005. (C) (i) Amir Sohail Nazim (ii) Fayyaz Naib Nazim Admittedly this joint candidature was withdrawn by the aforesaid learned counsel i.e. Rao Muhammad Ramzan who was given the authority by both these candidates for withdrawing their joint candidature and the same was withdrawn on 23-7-2005. This veryfact has not been stated in the instant constitutional petition. I believe that Mr. Abdul Satan Goraya, a renowned Advocate of this region was not told this very fact by the petitioners, for hidden reason therefore, same appears to have been not mentioned in this constitutional petition. (D) (i) Muhammad Fayyaz Nazim (ii) Muhammad Akram Naib Nazim This candidature was also withdrawn on the same date i.e. 23-7-2005 on the basis of the authority of Rao Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate.

7. Candidatures of Set Nos.3 and 4 were withdrawn on 23-7-2005. Whereas the candidature of Set No.2 was withdrawn on 25-7-2005 and a wide publicity of the result so prepared showing the candidature of Set No. 1 as having been elected unopposed, is also evident from the news published on 26-7-2005 in various sections of Press. Even otherwise, it is hard to believe that the contestants of Union Council of a Tehsil would remain unaware of the movements of each other. Petitioners, admittedly, moved the application to the Returning Officer on 29-7-2005 at about 10-30 p.m. No plausible explanation is available as to what for they remained quiet right from 23-7-2005 till late-night of 29-7-2005. They have the only explanation that they were satisfied that their nomination papers had been accepted and without acquiring the knowledge of rejection of their nomination papers as withdrawn in late-night of 29-7-2005 is not convincing.

8. Signatures of the petitioners on their Identity Cards and the documents in question may tally or may not tally but this Court cannot form conclusive opinion with regard thereto particularly in the instant proceedings, especially when I fail to understand as to what for the petitioners had not given a true account of affairs with regard to appointment of Rao Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate as an agent with reference to their joint candidature of their group including Muhammad Fayyaz petitioner No.

1. Even otherwise there was a right of appeal available to the petitioners against the order of the Returning Officer rejecting their nomination papers. Their stand to the effect that they had acquired the knowledge of rejection of their nomination papers on 29-7-2005 might have been taken in their appeal before the District Returning Officer for considering the same in accordance with law.

9. After having considered all the above factors together, I am constrained to hold that no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Resultantly instant petition stands dismissed. Copy Dasti. S.A.K./M-1239/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.