2024 PLP 1257 (MLD)
Sardar Muhammad AwaIs Nakai — Appellant Versus Rana Sikandar Hayat and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 1257 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sardar Muhammad AwaIs Nakai — Appellant Versus Rana Sikandar Hayat and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1257 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1257 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 1257 (MLD) (Sardar Muhammad AwaIs Nakai — Appellant Versus Rana Sikandar Hayat and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rizwan-ul-Hassan and Hamza Irshad for respondent No. 1.
- 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the amount due was settled and, therefore, it could not be termed as default. While referring to the tax return, it is pointed out that Rs. 9,884,546/- was the receivable loan from HBL of Account No. 7902507803 and placed reliance upon Umar Khan v. Returning Officer NA-19, N.W.P., District Haripur/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haripur and another (2003 MLD 222).
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 62 & 231
Election for seat of Provincial Assembly
Nomination papers, acceptance of
Bank defaulter, allegation of
Candidate for general electionsfiled appeal before the Election Appellate Tribunal against the acceptance of the nomination papers submitted by respondent (opposing /contesting candidate )
Objection ofthe appellant was that the respondent deliberately ,with mala fide intention , withheld the required information by disclosing only one lac as bank loan whereas he was defaulter of Rs. 9.90 million
Record revealed that in the form submitted by respondent in the column of LIABILITIES, "Rs. 1 Million loan was mentioned
In the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer it was observed that the candidate was not declared as defaulter by any institution and that the deficiencies pointed out by the objector were not substantial in nature
Stance of the respondent was that his wife was independent and an affidavit to said extent was produced before the Returning Officer who, of course, had to satisfy himself through an affidavit
As per a certificate issued by the concerned bank, about half of the loan (Rs. 9.90 million) was already paid as 1st installment, whereas 2nd installment and the remaining amount would be paid/adjusted on two promised dates of near future
After settlement of the loan, respondent would not be considered as a defaulter
Appeal filed by the candidate against acceptance of nomination papers of opposing / contesting candidate, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ali Baqar Najafi, J.
This appeal under Section 63 read with Section 231 of Elections Act, 2017 is directed against the order dated 22.03.2023 whereby the nomination papers submitted by respondent No.1 were accepted.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant is the registered voter of PP-181 (Kasur-VIII) and is also the candidate for the seat of Member Provincial Assembly from the same Constituency. The respondent No.1 submitted nomination papers for the General Elections of the Provincial Assembly from the same constituency wherein he deliberately withheld the required information with a mala fide intention and, therefore, he raised the objection which were rejected, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondent No.1 disclosed in Form-B only One Lac as bank loan whereas he was defaulter of Rs. 9.90 Million of HBL Phool Nagar, Branch and in clause "D" of the affidavit he did not furnish the correct information.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the amount due was settled and, therefore, it could not be termed as default. While referring to the tax return, it is pointed out that Rs. 9,884,546/- was the receivable loan from HBL of Account No. 7902507803 and placed reliance upon Umar Khan v. Returning Officer NA-19, N.W.P., District Haripur/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haripur and another (2003 MLD 222).
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. In the form submitted by respondent No.1 in the column of LIABILITIES, "Rs. 1 Million" loan was mentioned. In the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 it was observed that the candidate was not declared as defaulter by any institution and that the deficiencies pointed out by the objector was not substantial in nature. The stand of respondent No.1 is that his wife is independent and an affidavit to this extent was produced before respondent No.2 who, of course, has to satisfy himself through an affidavit. As per certificate dated 13.03.2023 issued by HBL, Rs. 9.90 Million against Pass Book from HBL Phool Nagar Branch, 1st installment of Rs. 4.50 Million was paid on 13.03.2023, 2nd installment of Rs. 4.50 Million will be paid on 15.05.2023 and the remaining amount will be adjusted on 15.07.2023. After settlement of the loan, respondent No.1 would not be considered as a defaulter.
7. In this view of the matter, this appeal is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. MQ/M-35/L Appeal dismissed.