2008 PLP 366 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25th June, 2004 whereby writ petition filed by respondent No.2 Haji Munawar Ali has been accepted, as a result whereof the judgment of Election Tribunal Khanewal dated 12th April, 2003 has been declared as having been passed without lawful authority.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.2 on the ground that at the time of submitting nomination papers for election of Naib Nazim along with respondent-Shakeel Ahmed candidate for Nazim he was not qualified to contest the election as his age was less than 25 years on 24th April, 2001 which were required to be filed as per schedule issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan in between the period of 21st April, 2001 and 24th April, 2001. Election Tribunal, however, accepted plea of the petitioner and vide order, dated 8th May, 2001, election of respondent as Naib Nazim along with election of Nazim was declared illegal. Feeling dissatisfied from the judgment of Election Tribunal, respondent No.2 preferred appeal which has been accepted by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that:-- (a) As per the judgment in the case of Waqas Akram v. Dr. Muhammad Tahirul Qadri and others 2003 SCMR 145 the cut off date for having qualification to contest the election at the age of 25 years was the last date of tiling of nomination papers. (b) Respondent No.2 acquired the age of 25 years on 5th May, 2001 on the last date of scrutiny when his nomination papers have already been examined in between the period, meant for it, commencing from 1st May, 2001 to 3rd May, 2001, therefore, he was not qualified to contest the election in any manner. (c) The election process commences from the date of filing of nomination paper, in view of the verdict of this Court in the case of Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javed Hashmi PLD 1989 SC 396, therefore, respondent No.2 was bound to show his qualification at the time of filing of nomination papers but he failed to do so, therefore, learned High Court erred in law in holding that the cut off date would be date of scrutiny of nomination papers.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for caveator contended that: (i) As per section 14(b) of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, cut off date was not provided, therefore, according to the judgment reported in the case of Emmanual Masih v. The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and others 1985 SCMR 729 the date of qualification would be the date of scrutiny. (ii) Section 14 of the Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000 is to be interpreted liberally in view of earlier law embodied in section 20 of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 1979. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine the contentions IB noted hereinabove. As important question relating to election of Nazim and Naib Nazim is involved in this case, therefore, office is directed to fix the appeal arising out of instant petition on an early date, immediately after summer vacations, in the month of September, 2004, subject to soliciting necessary approval from the Honourable Chief Justice. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1022-L of 2004. We see no substance in the application, as such same is dismissed. S.A.K./A-95/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Leave granted.