2016 PLP 431 (YLR)

Through instant petition, the petitioners have impugned the orders of Returning Officer and the learned District Judge/Appellate Authority Nausharo Feroze passed in Election Appeal No.136/2015 whereby vide order dated 12.10.2015 the nomination form of petitioners has been rejected on the ground of default in payment of SEPCO dues against petitioner No.1 Aamir Raza. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed their nomination form after completing all codal formalities. However, Returning Officer rejected the nomination form of petitioners on the ground of default in payment of outstanding amount of loan of National Bank of Pakistan in respect of petitioner No.1 Aamir Raza, which has been paid by the petitioner, whereafter clearance certificate dated 5.10.2015 has been issued by N.B.P and paid copy of challan and clearance certificate has been placed on record. Per learned counsel, before appellate authority, respondent No.5 for the first time raised another objection with regard the default in payment of electricity dues but the said dues were in the name of late father of petitioner No.1, however, the same bill amounting to Rs. 760674/- has also been paid by the petitioner to avoid cancellation of joint nomination form, whereas, original paid bill along with No Dues Certificate issued by SEPCO has been placed on record. Per learned counsel, the petitioner is not a defaulter as alleged by respondent No.5 before the Returning Officer and prays that the orders passed by the two authorities below may be set aside and nomination form of the petitioners may be accepted in accordance with law. Pursuant to Court's notice Mr. Ghulamullah Memon has shown appearance and has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.5, could not controver above position, however, submits that petitioner No.1 Aamir Raza has not declared the assets, which according to learned counsel, petitioner has inherited about 100 acres agricultural landed property from his late father Wali Muhammad. Learned counsel further submits that after the death of his father, the property stood devolved amongst the L.Rs. including petitioner who has not declared his share in such property. Learned counsel has placed on record statement along with photo copy of Form VII-B and submits that nomination form of petitioners has been rightly rejected. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently denied such allegation and submits that no such objection was raised before the Returning Officer or Appellate authority, therefore, cannot be entertained at this stage. However, petitioner No.1 present in court, has stated that such property was in the name of his late father, however, the same had been handed over to his step brother in life time of his father and did not devolve in his name, therefore, not declared by petitioner. Learned AAG and DAG in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, have candidly submitted that the joint nomination form of petitioners was rejected by the Returning Officer and appellate authority on the ground of default in payment of bank loan, and electricity dues, which have admittedly been paid by the petitioner No.1, and clearance certificate has been issued by NBP and No Dues certificate has been issued by SPECO authority, therefore, there is no default on the part of petitioners as alleged. As regards allegation of non-declatration of assets in the name of petitioner No. 1's deceased father, such fact has been vehemently denied by the petitioner No. 1, and the same cannot be taken into consideration at this belated stage which would otherwise defranchise the petitioners from contesting the election. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. It has emerged from the record that Returning Officer and the appellate authority did not provide opportunity to the petitioners to clear the outstanding amount in respect of payment of Bank dues and SEPCO charges, however, the petitioner No.1 has voluntarily paid such amount and placed on record the paid bill and clearance certificate as well. As regards the raised by respondent No.5 today before this Court that the petitioner No.1 has not declared his true assets, such fact has been categorically disputed by the petitioner No.1, therefore, we are not inclined to examine such disputed fact at this belated stage. We do not intend to defranchise the petitioners or to deprive them from their right of contesting elections at this stage on flimsy grounds and allegations which have been seriously disputed. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders passed by authorities below, and the Returning Officer U.C. Lett: Moro is directed to accept the nomination papers of petitioners and mention their names in form VIII in accordance with law. However, respondents will be at liberty to dispute the eligibility of petitioner by filing appropriate proceedings before Election Commission or Election Tribunal as may be permissible in accordance with law. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. SL/A-96/Sindh Petition allowed.