1993 PLP 2496 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 7th September 1993. SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.‑‑‑The appellant has challenged the order dated 1‑9‑1993 of the Returning Officer NA‑76 Gujranwala‑111 and has prayed that the condition imposed by the learned Returning Officer may be deleted as it was neither legal nor called for. The relevant portion of the impugned order, which has been questioned through this appeal, reads as follows:‑ "From the above said resume of affairs, I am of the explicit view that the loans were obtained by the company and it were also got written off by it in which the sponsors are mainly from the one and the same family. As such, unless the written off amount is got adjusted by the candidate, who is chief executive of M/s Butt Silk Mills Private Limited, he cannot contest the election. Otherwise, he is found to be qualified for his candidature. His nomination paper is as such accepted subject to adjustment of his liability at Rs.6.001 million.

2. During the hearing of the appeal, we asked the appellant, who was present in person, whether he was prepared to make a clear statement that the loan obtained from United Bank Limited had been fully paid back? The appellant instead of making a clear and spec statement in that regard, stated that the loan was liquidated on 14‑2‑1991 and the properties mortgaged were released by the Bank and that the Documents were returned. He tried to convey that the liquidation was done as a result of adjustment and compromise and so the loan may be deemed to have been repaid.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the word `written off' used in the Ordinance does not connote, in any manner, the word liquidation or satisfaction. According to him, the legislature by using the word `written off' limited the scope leaving the liquidation of the loans by way of adjustment on a different plane than the loans, which were `written off'.

4. We are unable to accept the interpretation put forth by the learned counsel. Whenever a loan is liquidated without making full payment in cash or through valuables worth the cash, it will be deemed to have been written off. The phrases adjustment/satisfaction or liquidation, we believe are just the phrases used for their customers/businessmen by the Bank authorities, as essentially they are business concerns.

5. Since we have not accepted the argument/explanation of the appellant that the loan of UBL was not written off, we have not considered it necessary to consider the disability incurred due to non‑payment of loan of IDBP, because we are of the view that even if it is accepted that no fault was committed by the appellant in the matter of the loan to the IDBP, the disqualification which he incurred by getting the loan written off remains hung, to him. The appeal is dismissed being without merit. H.B.T./91/E Appeal dismissed