Sayed ANWAR HASANAT vs RETURNING OFFICER PP27, JHELUM (IV)

ORDER

' This appeal under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, is directed against the order dated 6-4-2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer NA-63, PP-26 and 27, Jhelum, whereby the appellant's nomination papers for contesting the election to the Provincial: PP-27, Jhelum, have been rejected on the ground that at the time of filing of nomination papers the appellant was a citizen of the United States of America. During the process of scrutiny the appellant claimed that he had surrendered his U.S. Citizenship. As a consequence he was required to provide proof of surrender of his U.S. Citizenship. The appellant produced a copy of the letter dated 25-3-2013 addressed by the appellant to the U.S. Consul, Lahore, expressing his desire to surrender his U.S. Citizenship. The appellant was, however, unable to furnish a response from the U.S. Consul and/or any order from the U.S. State Department stating that the appellant's application has been accepted and he is no longer a U.S. Citizen. In view thereof the nomination papers of the appellant were rejected as he held to be disqualified under the provisions of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as on 25-3-2013 the appellant had applied to the U.S. Consul, Lahore, for renouncing/surrendering his U.S. Citizenship. The mere filing of the application amounts to surrendering of U.S. Citizenship. The appellant had thus performed his duty.

The processing of the appellant's application by the U.S. Authorities should not, therefore, be an impediment to the appellant contesting the elections for the seat of PP-27, Jhelum. As for all intents and purposes the appellant has renounced his U.S. Citizenship by filing the application dated 25-3- 2013. Further contends that the learned Returning Officer has erred in holding otherwise. Lastly contends that the appellant in such circumstances was not required to file any formal proof of acceptance of the petitioner's application by the U.S. Authorities.

3. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record.

4. We are afraid we are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant for the reasons that firstly the appellant has only moved an application for renouncing/surrendering his U.S. Citizenship. The said application was made on 25-3-2013. The U.S. Authorities are still to pass an order upon the appellant's application. As such as at the date of filing of his nomination papers as also on the date of the scrutiny the appellant was/is still a U.S. Citizen. Even today the learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show us any document from the U.S. Authorities showing that the appellant's application for surrendering/renouncing U.S. Citizenship has been accepted.

5. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

6. The candidature of the appellant is hit by the provisions of Article 113 read with Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. Consequently this appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.