The petitioners challenged the rejection of their nomination papers by the Returning Officer for alleged concealment of assets, which decision had been set aside by the Appellate Authority under the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, but subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the Appellate Authority allowing a candidate to contest local government elections. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that where an authority under the Local Government Act allows a candidate to contest an election, such an order cannot be challenged through writ jurisdiction in the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that such challenges must instead be raised in post-election proceedings through an Election Petition under section 39 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, thereby restoring the order of the Appellate Authority while keeping open the respondents' right to agitate the controversy post-election.
' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Nomination papers of the petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer vide order dated 16.09.2015 on account of concealment of assets and liabilities required to be disclosed. However, the Appellate Authority, not signing of nomination papers by one of the petitioner, vide order dated 23.09.2015 set aside the order passed by the Returning Officer dated 16.09.2015 with the direction to get the defect rectified from the petitioners in accordance with Rule 14(7) of the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2013 and since clearance certificate from MEPCO has been submitted by the petitioners to the effect that none of the petitioners is defaulter. However, matter was agitated by the respondents in writ jurisdiction by filing the writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Multan. The learned Single Judge of the High Court seized of the matter by holding that a candidate is bound to declare his asset and liabilities in terms of Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, treated the same to be visited by rejection of nomination, in terms of Rules 14(3)(c) of the Rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is not tenable under the law and as such the same is liable to be set aside as the petitioners have not concealed their assets and liabilities at the time of submission of nomination papers,
3. It may be observed that none of the barring clauses in the disqualifying provision contained in subsection (2) of section 27 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 apply to the case of petitioner.
4. In our view the dictum laid down Darya Khan v. Mehran Khan (PLD 1974 Karachi 209) (para 30 page 222) is also attracted in cases where the authority under the Local Government Act allows a candidate to contest the election, same cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction in the High Court for the simple reason that such challenge could be thrown in post-election proceedings through Election Petition under section 39 as mandated under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment dated 28.10.2015 is set aside and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.09.2015 is restored. Let the needful be done to facilitate the petitioners to contest elections. This is however, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to agitate such controversy, if any, in post election proceedings.