NAEEM AHMAD BHATTI and others vs DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the respondents' constitutional petition was allowed and the nomination papers of the petitioners for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim were rejected on the ground that the Matriculation Certificate of petitioner No. 1 was allegedly forged. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, can set aside concurrent orders of the Returning Officer and District Returning Officer accepting nomination papers and determine a disputed question of fact regarding the forgery of an educational certificate. The Supreme Court held that the Matriculation Certificate could not be summarily declared forged in constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of unimpeachable evidence and a finding by a competent tribunal of fact, and accordingly allowed the petitioners provisionally to contest the election pending notice and record production. The key principle laid down is that disputed questions of fact regarding the authenticity of documents in election matters should not ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction without definitive factual inquiry.
- Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction declare an educational certificate to be forged without unimpeachable evidence and a finding by a competent tribunal?
- Whether concurrent orders of the Returning Officer and District Returning Officer accepting nomination papers can be annulled in writ proceedings on disputed questions of fact?
- Are candidates entitled to interim relief to contest elections provisionally when their nomination papers are subjected to contested allegations of forgery?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Leave is sought against the judgment dated 3-8-2005 passed by a learned, Judge of Lahore High Court vide which respondents, constitutional petition was allowed and the nomination papers of the petitioners for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No,59, District Vehari were rejected.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioners filed nomination papers for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim for the afore-referred Union Council which were accepted by the Returning Officer vide the order, dated 23-7-2005 and appeal against the same filed by the respondents was dismissed by the District Returning Officer on 26-7-2005. These concurrent orders have been set aside by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide the impugned judgment. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to petitioners' nomination papers which has persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned judgment was that petitioner No,1 is not qualified to contest the elections as the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is allegedly a forged document.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is a matriculate; that the certificate issued by the concerned Board was a genuine document which has been disbelieved by the High Court on a subjective consideration. He lastly contended that once the election schedule has been announced and the nomination papers stand accepted by the competent Tribunals i.e, the Returning Officer and the District Returning Officer, the High Court cannot, in writ jurisdiction, reject the same and annul the concurrent orders.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents who appeared for the caveator defended the impugned order by submitting that the Matriculation Certificate obtained by petitioner No,1 is a forged document which is evident from endorsement made by the said Board that they had not issued the certificate being relied upon by petitioner No,l.
5. On Court query, petitioner submitted that he is prepared to face criminal proceedings in case the Matriculation Certificate, he had placed on record, is found to be forged prima facie, there is substance in the submission made by the petitioners' learned counsel that the Matriculation Certificate placed on record by petitioner No,1 could not be declared as forged in constitutional jurisdiction in absence of any unimpeachable evidence and a finding of fact by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
6. Notice. A notice shall also be issued to the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad Sindh to cause the production of original record pertaining to Certificate No,A-20433, Group "General" Seat No,85286 (Secondary School Examination 1994) on the next date of hearing to be fixed by the office. Civil Miscellaneous Application No,1154-L of 2005.
7. Meanwhile, petitioners are provisionally allowed to contest the election.