ALTAF HUSSAIN vs RETURNING OFFICER NA135 AND 171 (Sangla Hill) and another

ORDER

' Through this single order, we propose to decide two election appeals i,e, E.A.No,223/A of 2013 and E.A. No,227-A of 2013 as both the appeals are against order of the learned Returning Officer (respondent No,1) whereby nomination papers of respondent No,2, candidate of PP-171, were accepted.

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the respondent No,2 has submitted wrong affidavit/declaration before the respondent No,1, the respondent No,2 while contesting election of Nazim Union Council Shahkot in the year 2001 claimed his education qualification as matric, the respondent No,2 lose that election; in the year 2008 he submitted his nomination papers from PP- 171 by declaring himself to be a graduate and in the forthcoming election from NA-135 and PP-171 the respondent No,2 has claimed his education qualification as matric. Learned counsel submits that reversal of respondent No,2 from graduation' to matric is inconvincible and is sufficient to prove that the respondent No,2 has made false declaration while submitting his nomination papers; the respondent No,2 has shown his annual income as Rs,259,000/- and paid tax of Rs,64,494/-, his income in the new year i,e, 2012 increased to Rs,285,000/- but his tax payment has reduced to, Rs,.49,401/-; the respondent No,2 thus is a tax defaulter. Learned counsel further argues that the most glaring contradiction of respondent No,2 as is evident in his nomination papers is that during the last three years, he has shown average income of Rs,20,000/- against his assets of Rs,73.00 million, hence it is proven fact on the record that the respondent No,2 has declared his income wrongly. Learned counsel submits that the income of respondent No,2 is Rs,21,000/- per month but he is owning a car valuing of Rs,1.8 million and his bank balance has been shown more than Rs,14.00 million, this very fact is sufficient to prove that the respondent No,2 has not disclosed his true assets and has submitted a wrong declaration; the respondent No,2 is running CNG filling station value of which has been shown as Rs,2,50,000/- which is apparently a false declaration, no CNG filling station can be installed for a consideration of Rs,250,000/-; the value of CNG filling station is more than Rs,50.00 million; the monthly gas bill of the CNG filling station for the last month was of Rs,24,18,640/- the consumption of CNG filling station will show that sale against said consumption is of Rs,4.3 million; after deducting all taxes, the respondent No,2 is earning at least Rs,1.2 million per month. Learned counsel submits that the learned Returning Officer has failed to appreciate this fact of the case and wrongly accepted the nomination papers of respondent No,2.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that the CNG filling station belonged to his son, he is only running the filling station and value of filling station has been shown as Rs,250,000/- which is the value of land only whereas the value of machinery/immovable property has been shown as Rs,1,61,00,000/- The respondent No,2's income no doubt has been shown as Rs,21000/- per month but the respondent is an old businessman and he owns a car valuing Rs, I.8 million. Further, his account.Is showing credit balance as Rs,140,52,466/- and he has rightly mentioned the same; the list of bank account is also available on record. As far as the BA degree and its reversal to matriculation certificate is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that the decree of graduation is not necessary/mandatory for contesting the election of 2013.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

5. Even if we assume that the reversal of degree from graduation to matric is not issue between the parties but it is a proven fact on record that the respondent No,2 is showing his monthly income as Rs,21,000/- and his bank account is showing credit balance as Rs,140,52,486/-. We asked the learned counsel for respondent No,2 as to whether it may be typographical mistake but the learned counsel confirmed that the amount is available in the respondent No,2's account. The above said fact is sufficient prove that the respondent No,2 has not disclosed his true assets and his declaration is based on wrong information which he is submitted on oath as against the monthly income of Rs,21,000/-, no one can save Rs,140,52,486/-, this fact shows that respondent No,2 is earning sizeable amount from CNG filling station but is not shown its income for evading the Income Tax.

6. As far as the consumption of CNG bill of Rs,24,18,640/- is concerned, the respondent No,2 is unable to explain where the consumption of CNG is more than of Rs,24 00 000/- the sale of CNG will not exceed Rs,43,00,000/- and he is not earning Rs,12,00,000/- per month.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 is unable to explain the above said facts which will show that the respondent No,2 intentionally has submitted wrong declaration on oath. In these circumstances, we accept these appeals and reject the nomination papers of respondent No,2.