2002 PLP 304 (CLC)

This writ petition arises out of the facts that respondents Nos.2 and ‑3 had filed their nomination papers as candidates of Nazim and Naib Nazim for Union Council Allah Abad No. 113 of District Rahimyar Khan with the Returning Officer, Liaqatpur. The petitioner at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers objected against the nomination of said respondents, raising various objections including the default of an amount of Rs.1,78,745 of the A.D.B.P., Liaqatpur, and giving false affidavit of assets. Thus, being committed major sin, the respondent No.3 was disqualified under section 14(d)(j) of the B.N.P.S. Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000. It was also objected by the petitioner that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not the matriculate and they have not attached the matriculate certificates with the nomination papers which is the requirement of law. The Returning Officer had accepted the nomination papers of said respondents. The order in this respect was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal which came up for hearing before the Appellate Authority and the appeal of the petitioner was accepted .vide order, dated 8‑3‑2001, rejecting the nomination papers of respondents Nos.2 and 3.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has not given findings on all the objections of the petitioner while passing the impugned order.

3. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority/respondent No.1, rejecting their joint nomination papers, through a separate Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2001 which has been admitted to regular hearing by my order of even date after hearing the arguments of the petitioner and the contesting respondents Nos.2 and 3 (herein) who are writ petitioners in the aforementioned writ petition and the order of the Appellate Authority has been suspended. 4. 1 have heard the arguments of the petitioner and perused the record. The remedy of appeal is provided under sub‑rule (4) of rule 18 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "An appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer under sub‑rule (3) may be preferred by any person present at the time of scrutiny under sub‑rule (1) to the Appellate Authority appointed for the purpose by the Chief Election Commissioner, and the decision of such Authority shall be final. Sub‑rule(3) has further provided that the Returning Officer, may, either suo motu or upon any objection, conduct such summary inquiry as he may think fit and reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that:-‑ (i) the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a member; (ii) the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination paper; (iii) any provision of rules 16 and 17 has not been complied with; or (iv) the signature or thumb‑impression of the proposer or the seconder is not genuine; From the plain reading of the above provisions of law, it would show that the appeal is available only if the order of rejection of nomination paper is passed by the Returning Officer. This argument has further been strengthened by the provisions of rule 23 wherein it is contemplated that after scrutiny under rule 18 only such number of persons remain as validly nominated candidates as are equal to the number of members to be elected from a Ward or where after withdrawal or retirement under rule 20 only such number of persons is left as contesting candidates as are equal to the number of members to be elected from a Ward, 'he Returning Officer shall, by public notice, declare such candidates to be elected to the seats. Provided that if after scrutiny an), candidate indicates that he intends to file an appeal under sub‑rule (4) of rule 18 against the rejection of his nomination paper, no person shall be declared elected until the period for filing such appeal has expired and no such appeal has been filed or where an appeal is filed, until the disposal of such appeal.

5. It is, thus, manifestly clear that the appeal under sub‑rule (4) of rule 18 is available only against the rejection of the nomination paper and this remedy is not provided against the acceptance of nomination papers.

6. The petitioner has referred to a notification of the Chief Election Commissioner in support of his arguments that sub‑rule (4) of rule 18 has provided appeal against the acceptance of nomination papers. It would suffice to observe that the appeal, review and revision is a statutory, remedy, meaning thereby that it is the creation of some Act, Ordinance or Rules made thereunder, The notification issued by the Chief Election would not override the statutory provision of law, therefore, the argument of the petitioner that appeal against the acceptance of nomination papers is competent, having no force is repelled.

7. The Appellate Authority while entertaining and disposing of the appeal of the petitioner has already exercised its jurisdiction without lawful authority, therefore, no writ can be issued in favour of the petitioner.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition having no merit is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./M-885/L Petition dismissed.