KAHYAL AHMED vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL PUNJAB, LAHORE & others
This petition challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for the Provincial Assembly of Punjab (PP-71). The core legal question was whether the petitioner had failed to disclose financial liabilities in his nomination papers as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The petitioner argued that he was merely a guarantor for a company's debt and that his personal share was paid, thus not constituting a default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to disclose a significant court decree for recovery pending against him at the time of filing, thereby violating the disclosure requirements of Section 12(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Court affirmed that a guarantor's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872, making the guarantor jointly and severally liable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no question of public importance warranting interference with the lower courts' decisions.
- Does the failure to disclose a pending court decree for recovery in nomination papers constitute a valid ground for rejection under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Is the liability of a guarantor co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Can a candidate avoid disclosure requirements in nomination papers by claiming the status of a guarantor rather than a principal debtor?
- Section 14(5), Representation of the People Act 1976
- Section 12, Representation of the People Act 1976
- Section 12(2), Representation of the People Act 1976
- Section 12(2)(c), Representation of the People Act 1976
- Section 128, Contract Act 1872
ORDER
Abdul Hameed Dogar, HCJ.--This petition is directed against order dated 13.12.2007 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No, 11932 of 2007 filed by petitioner was dismissed and order of the learned Tribunal dated 07.12.2007 was maintained.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that petitioner filed nomination papers before Respondent No, 2, the Returning Officer for Provincial Assembly of Punjab PP-71 which were rejected on 03.12.2007. Feeling aggrieved, he filed an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 before Election Tribunal, Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2007. Feeling still not satisfied he filed Writ Petition No, 11932 of 2007 before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which too was dismissed vide impugned order.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner 'at length and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned High Court has misinterpreted provisions of Sections 12 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976'). According to him under Section 12(2)(c) of the Act of 1976, the candidate has to give apart from other declarations that no loan for an amount of two million rupees or more obtained from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents or any business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has got such loan written off. He urged that decree was passed against M/s Ahmad Straw Board Company wherein the share of petitioner was only Rs, 13,40,650/- which was paid and he ceased to be its director with effect from 30.6.2007. He further contended that petitioner stood only as guarantee for the finance obtained by the said company and there was no default on his part.
5. There is no denial to the fact that in the column regarding liabilities in the nomination papers filed by petitioner neither any liability has been shown nor decree for recovery of Rs, 69,51,598/- passed on 15.5.2007 against petitioner and others has been mentioned. Though at the time of filing of nomination papers execution application for the said decree filed by Respondent No, 4 (Crescent Leasing (Cres Lease) Leasing Corporation was pending. Thus requirements of Section 12(2) of the Act, 1976 have not been complied with by the petitioner, as such, his nomination papers were rightly rejected by all the forums below. Moreover, the liability of guarantor/surety is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract as envisaged in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount to the creditor. A guarantor cannot shrink from the liabilities incurred by him.
The learned counsel has failed to point out any question of law of public importance warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment, which is maintained. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.