1984 PLP 544 (CLC)

‑‑R. 13‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑ Election to Union Council‑Rejection of nomination paper by Returning Officer based on ground that 'the proposer and seconder signature stated to be forged and rebutted"‑Neither any proof sought nor determined on evidence‑ Petitioner filing affidavits of proposer and seconder saying that they had signed nomination papers‑‑Held, without enquiring, evidence and proper adjudication, rejection of nomination papers by Returning Officer was without lawful authority‑‑Purpose of election law was to find out who had the following of electorate and whom they choose to represent them, had been served in circumstances. ... [Evidence]. 'Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others P L D 1958 S C (Rak.) 104 ref: JUDGMENT ABDUL SHAKUAUL SALAM, J.‑.The petitioner and respondent No 3 filed. nomination papers to contest the election for Ward No. 3 Malikpur Union Council Mirowal, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. Nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected by the Re turning Officer on the ground that "Proposer and seconder signature stated to be forged, unrebutted". This is vide order, dated 8th September, 1983. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was rejected on the ground that he had not deposited any fee vide order of the appellate authority, dated 12th September, 1983.

2. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders of rejection of his nomination papers through the above‑titled Constitutional petition. On preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by the learned Division Bench on 24th September, 1983. "The Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the peti tioner on the short ground that the signature of the proposer and seconder were `stated' to be forged, and that there was no rebuttal. As it was the duty of the Returning Officer to have himself decided whether it was factually so or not, he could not merely rely on an allegation. The other contention of the learned counsel that the mere omission to pay the deposit was not fatal, also requires consideration Notice. The impugned order is suspended. The Returning Officer shall accept the nomination paper of the petitioner, if otherwise in order. It is subject to notice for an early date."

3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the contesting parties that the petitioner has succeeded in the election by fair lead. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 has sub mitted that the nomination papers of the petitioner were rightly rejected and if the orders of rejection of his nomination papers are upheld, the election of the petitioner will have to be set aside and fresh election hold.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order of rejection of nomination papers of the petitioner was based on the ground that "the proposer and seconder signature stated to be forged and unrebutted." Mere allegation was not enough. Proof should have been sought and matter determined on evidence. Nothing of the kind was done. Petitioner has filed affidavits of the proposer and seconder saying that they had signed the nomination papers. Without enquiring, evidence and proper adjudication, rejection of nomination papers by the Returning officer was without lawful authority. Superstructure base thereto has to fall as well. Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 104) at p.

117. Moreover, purpose of election law is to find out who' has the following of the electorate and whom they choose to represent them, has been served. For the reasons given earlier, the impugned orders .are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. M.Z.M. Petition accepted.