2008 PLP 1422 (CLC)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this order we intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.11871 of 2007, 11872 of 2007, 11920 of 2007 and 11984 of 2007.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 offered his candidature for the seat of Provincial Assembly PP-107 and National Assembly NA-103 and submitted his nomination papers which were accepted by the Returning Officer despite objection raised by the petitioner as to the respondent's disqualification in terms of Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Election order, 2002 as he was lacking requisite educational qualification. Appeal filed by the petitioner against acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the learned Election Tribunal vide order, dated 8-12-2007, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the presence of a categorical statement made on behalf of the University of 'the Punjab that the B.A. degree on the basis of which respondent No.1 was contesting election stood cancelled, there was no option with the Election Tribunal but to reject the nomination papers of the said respondent; that the learned Election Tribunal while deciding the election appeal filed by respondent No.1 did not take into account the facts that respondent No.1 had procured a bogus degrees for the purpose of contesting the election and that this allegation had been proved up to the level of the honorable Supreme Court where the petitioner's Civil Petition No.1623 of 2002 had been dismissed on 30-9-2002, the said case was reported as Intisar Hussain v. Akhtar Hussain and 4 others 2003 SCMR 204; that on account of adopting unfair means respondent No.1 was disqualified for appearing in any examination held by the University of the Punjab for a period of three years w.e.f. 2002; that the, fraud committed by respondent No.1 reflected on his character in terms of the provisions of Article 62(d) and (f) and Article 63(e) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and thus, he was disqualified to contest elections; that the Returning Officer as well as the Election Tribunal were fully competent to take notice of pre-election disqualification of a candidate during the process of scrutiny and that granting permission to a disqualified person would amount to disfranchising a number of voters.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Nazir Ahmed Ghazi and Mr. Muhammad Shan Gul, Advocates controverted the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner by heavily relying on the case of Ch. Nazir Ahmad and others v. Chief Election Commissioner and 4 others PLD 2002 SC 184 and argued that in writ jurisdiction this Court is always slow to interfere in election disputes especially keeping in view Article 225 of the Constitution. It was further argued that the controversy called for a detailed inquiry/investigation which exercise could not be undertaken by this Court while seized of a constitutional petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record brought by the University of the Punjab.

6. It is an admitted position that in the year 2002 respondent No.1 who had appeared in Bachelor of Arts Annual Examination 2002 under Roll No.026938, got involved in a case of unfair means as a result of which consequent upon disciplinary action, he was disqualified for a period of three years. He was, therefore, not eligible to appear in any examination earlier than 2005. It is also not denied that respondent No.1 is now attempting to contest election on the basis of his claim that he holds a Bachelor of Arts degree having taken the examination in the year 2003 under Roll No.116777 and that degree had been issued to him by virtue or he said examination on 15-12-2005. The stand taken by the University of the Punjab is that respondent No.1 could not appear in any examination earlier than 2005 and that he had managed to appear in the First Annual Examination, 2003 under Roll No.116777 by adopting deceitful means i.e. that he changed the spellings of his name from "Intsar" to "Intesar". According to the University Authorities he was successful in, his gimmick on account of changed spellings as the computer could not pick up this anomaly. We have also examined the original record produced by the University of the Punjab and have observed that the signatures of respondent No.1 on the form, submitted for examination in the year 2002 and his signatures on his latest computerized National Identity Card completely tally with each other whereas his signatures on the form submitted for the examination of the year 2003 are entirely different. As already stated earlier a case of unfair means had been set up against him in the year 2002. As such, the fraud and forgery committed by the respondent is patent on the' face of the record and does not need any inquiry or investigation. We tend to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has not exhibited a very enviable conduct and that it appears that he was bent upon procuring a degree by hook or by crook. The learned Tribunal had failed to take into account that respondent No.1 had been guilty of fraud and that facilitating him to contest election would be a negation of the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Intisar Hussain (supra). By hoodwinking the University Authorities respondent No.1 has not only tried to cheat and practice deception upon Election Authorities but has also tried to steal a march on the Court. Needless to add that Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 mandates all Executive of Judicial Authorities in the country to act in aid of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and Ameen as provided for in Article 62(f) of the Constitution as well as section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and consequently cannot be allowed to contest elections. Even otherwise, the degree procured by him on the basis of examination in the year 2003 has since been cancelled by the University. There is hardly any dispute left to be inquired into or investigated upon. Resultantly, we accept this petition set aside the order of the learned Tribunal and declare that the respondent is not qualified to contest the election due to lack of educational qualification etc. as provided for in terms of section 99(1)(1) and (ee) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. H.B.T./U-12/L Petition accepted.