1989 PLP 4571 (MLD)

(13) Anwar Ahmed Khan 2500 Govt. holding Baluchistan Govt. The next important point which learned Deputy Attorney‑General has taken is that Government hold more than 93% shares in the K.E.S.C. The statement duly signed by the Secretary of K.E.S.C. with regard to the shares in the K.E.S.C. is as under:‑ (1) R-1419 National Bank of Pakistan 15358915 % (2) R-1605 Investment Corporation of Pakistan. 20251665 % (3) R-2179 Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation 986805 % (4) R-2190 National Investment Trust 59 % (5) R-2394 State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan 20519070 % (6) R-589 Pakistan Insurance Corporation 609791 % 57,726,305 86.2205 National Banks. (1) R-1011 Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 24406 (2) R-1368 Habib Bank Ltd. Foreign Exchange Branch Karachi 320 (3) R-1554 'Habib Bank Ltd. M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi 36 (4) R-1574 Habib Bank Ltd. Central Office 162 (5) R-2068 United Bank Ltd. 267 (6) R-2071 Habib Bank Ltd. 167 (7) R-2089 United Bank Ltd. 63 (8) R-2568 Habib Bank Ltd. Kharadar Branch, Karachi 22 (9) R-4327 Habib Bank Ltd. 6669 (10) R-6541 Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 352921 (11) R-6902 United Bank Ltd. 3927265 4,512,298 6.7396% Grand Total 62,328,603 92.9601% The shareholders in the K.E.S.C. are individuals, Financial Institutions, Government of Pakistan, Investment Companies, Insurance Companies, etc. In the institutions, as mentioned in the list, either the Govt. funds are involved, National Bank of Pakistan and other banks which are controlled by the Government or in other case Government has more than controlling share. The Insurance Companies have been nationalised. From the above fact it is clear that in K.E.S.C. the controlling share and interest is that of Government. I am of the view that K.E.S.C. is controlled by the Government, the Government has controlling share and interest as 92.960% investments are of Investments Companies, Financial Institutions, Banks and Government. The entire control is of Managing Director of K.E.S.C. Directors and M.D. are nominees of Government and majority of Directors are also from Government. The affairs of K.E.S.C. are directly as well as indirectly controlled by the Government. On this point I may refer to a case of Fatah Khan v. Sharaaf Khan reported in PLD 1984 Lah.

106. The Division Bench of Lahore High Court has dealt with this issue m detail about the disqualification of the employee of Sul Northern Gas Pipelines Limited. The findings arc that Sharaaf Khan being an employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines was not qualified to contest the election of Union Council, Attock in any lawful authority. Their Lordships in this case have discussed in detail about the control or interest of the Government in the abovesaid institution namely Sui Northern (Jas Pipelines Limited. In this case all aspects such as jurisdiction when objection to nomination was not raised has also been dealt with. Now I revert to the judgment of my Lord Mr. Justice Syed Ally Madad Shah on the basis of which nomination of S. Safdar Rizvi was accepted. In case of Haji Zaheerullah Afridi it was pointed out to the learned Member of the Election Commission that according to Printed Annual Report of the K.E.S.C., the Government holds only 0.04 share. This point has persuaded my Lord to hold that in view of this position the Government has got the only interest to the extent of Managing Agents. Presently this position has been clarified by the learned Deputy Attorney‑General about share and control of Government on K.E.S.C. The point was not argued before learned Member of the Election Commission therefore he has rightly not considered that position which was not argued before my Lord. Mr. Rizvi was present on 13‑11‑1988 alongwith his counsel and both argued and they did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Commission, etc. but when he heard the arguments of learned Deputy Attorney‑General today about the controlling shares of the Government in the K.E.S.C. he sought time and came after two hours with preliminary objections not touching that point about interest and shares of Govt. stating therein that notice does not disclose provisions of law under which it was issued and there was no objection to the acceptance of the nomination paper from other candidates. As such Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re‑open issue as the matter can only be agitated after the election by way of election petition. He has stated that use of the word Government is key word in the statute and as the matter pertains to the dis?qualification and other agencies arc not governed by the Government. On 13‑11‑1988 he argued at length and his counsel also argued but no such plea was taken however it is relevant to give findings on the points raised by Mr. Rizvi, Under section 103(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1976 which reads as under:‑ "The Commission to ensure fair election, etc. Save as otherwise provided 'the Commission may review an order passed by an officer under this Act or the rules including rejection of a ballot‑paper. In this case the nomination papers were accepted by a Returning Officer under the Representation of People Act, 1976 and the rules, therefore the Commission is empowered to review that order under this provision of the law. The matter was brought to the notice of Commission and notice has issued to the respondent to appear and argue his case. According to section 4 of the same. Act the Commission may authorise its Chairman or any of its member or any officer of the Commission to exercise and perform all or any of its powers and functions under the Act. The Commission on 11th October, 1988 delegated powers under the Act excepting the powers under subsection (7) of section 7 and section 103?-AA of the Act to the Members as such in exercise of the powers, I took cognizance of this matter which was referred by the Chief Election Commissioner therefore the Commission has got the jurisdiction to deal with these matters. Objections raised by respondent S. Safdar Rizvi even at the later stage a have been considered and dealt with but without substance. ?????????? For the foregoing reasons I hold that respondent S. Safdar Rizvi is not qualified and his case is hit by section 99(1-A)(e) of the Representation of People Act, 1976. He is disqualified and cannot contest the election. His nomination paper has wrongly been accepted. I, therefore, order that his name be struck off from the list of contesting candidates from Constituency No.N.A.‑191, Karachi. H.B.T./39/E Order accordingly.