Election appeal

2013 CLC 1010 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 14(5) & 14(5A)Election appealAppreciation of evidenceRejection of nomination papersSubmission of false declarationNon-disclosure of true incomeEvasion of income taxNomination papers filed by candidate (respondent) for seat of Provincial Assembly were accepted

Plea on behalf of appellant was that candidate was running a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) filling station value of which had been shown as Rs.250,000, which was apparently a false declaration, and the (actual) value of the filling station was more than Rs.50 million; that the monthly gas consumption bill of the filling station for the last month was Rs.24,18,640, which showed that sale against such consumption was Rs.4.3 million; that after deducting all taxes candidate was earning at least Rs.1.2 million per month, whereas he had shown his monthly income as Rs.21,000

Validity

Candidate had shown his monthly income as Rs.21,000 while his bank account was showing a credit balance of Rs.140,52,486, which fact was sufficient to prove that he had not disclosed his true assets and his declaration was based on wrong information, which was submitted on oath

No one could save Rs.140,52,486 against a monthly income of Rs.21,000

Candidate was earning a sizeable amount from the filling station but did not show the same in his income for evading income tax and was unable to explain the fact that if monthly consumption of gas at the filling station was more than Rs.24,00,000, then how sale of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) would not exceed Rs.43,00,000, and consequently his monthly earning would not (at least) be Rs.1.2 million

Candidate, in circumstances, had intentionally submitted wrong declaration on oath

Appeal was allowed and nomination papers of candidate were rejected.

2013 CLC 1461 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 14Constitution of Pakistan, Art.62(1)(f)Election appealElection to National AssemblyNomination papers, rejection of

Order of Returning Officer that Supreme Court in its judgment had declared appellant's act of suspending Constitution on 30-11-2007 and detaining Judges of superior Courts as mala fide and ultra vires to the Constitution

Validity

Appellant on 3-11-2007 had attempted to appropriate himself delegated sovereign power in its entirety by putting the Constitution in abeyance

Supreme Court in its judgment had described such act of appellant as a gross misappropriation, which was an abuse of sacred trust

Supreme Court in its judgment had declared that appellant while doing so had not acted as an ameen within meaning and for purposes of Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution

Appellant was not a person qualified to be elected a member of National Assembly

Election Tribunal dismissed appeal in circumstances

Principles.

2013 CLC 271 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Ss.7, 11, 14(3), 57, 99 & 100Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 62(1)(f), 63(1)(c) & 224Election appealNomination papers, acceptance ofDisqualificationDetermination

Respondent was Member of National Assembly but he was declared disqualified by Supreme Court on the allegation of having dual nationality, therefore, his seat fell vacant

Respondent again filed his nomination papers with the declaration that he was not holding nationality of any other country and Returning Officer accepted his nomination papers

Appellant filed objection against nomination papers of respondent alleging that he had made a wrong declaration and did not deposit emoluments received by him during the period for which he was declared disqualified by Supreme Court

Validity

Money ordered to be refunded had not been calculated and ascertained and as such respondent could not be held having not complied with the order passed by Supreme Court

Returning Officer passed order rejecting objection petition of appellant and accepting nomination papers of respondent in view of record which did not hint that respondent was undergoing a disqualification under Arts.62 & 63 of the Constitution or corresponding sections 99 and 100 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, or had been declared by a court of law not to be sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and Ameen and had not complied with orders passed by Supreme Court

Disqualification, if any, incurred by respondent could after production of evidence be considered by Election Tribunal appointed by Election Commission under section 57 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, in election petition

Returning Officer neither flouted the judgment passed by Supreme Court nor omitted to perform his functions and duties entrusted to him under sections 7 and 14 of Representation of the People Act, 1976

Election Tribunal declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.