LUQMAN SAJID vs RETURNING OFFICER and 5 others

ORDER

Through this single order we intend to decide the instant petition as well as W . P. No .224355/2018 titled "Luqman Sajid v. Returning Officer and 5 others" and W.P. No,224356/2018 titled "Luqman Sajid v. Returning Officer and 5 others" as all the petitions are outcome of the impugned orders dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Returning Officer/Respondent No,1 and the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Election Appellate Tribunal/Respondent No,5 whereby the objection petitions filed by the Petitioner were dismissed.

2. Through all these petitions, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the abovementioned impugned orders.

3. Brief facts of all the petitions are that the Petitioner filed objection petitions against the Respondent No,6 alleging that he was not qualified to contest the election as he was hit by the disqualification on the ground of concealment of material facts as well as contradictions in the statements as well as declaration made by him while offering his candidature before the Respondent No,1 who dismissed the same vide the impugned order dated 18.06.2018. The Petitioner challenged the said order before the Respondent No,5 which too met-to the same fate vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2018. Hence these petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the impugned orders are against the law and facts; that the findings of the Respondents Nos,1 and 5 are result of misreading and non- reading of material available on record; that the Respondent No,1 as well as the learned Election Appellate Tribunal have not taken into consideration the valid proof produced by the Petitioner regarding concealment made by the Respondent No,6; that concealment of assets of wife of the Respondent No,6 makes him disqualified to contest the elections but despite clear contradiction in the statements and proofs submitted by the Respondent No,6 in this regard, the said fact has been overlooked.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No,6 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that all the necessary requirements were fulfilled by the Respondent No,6 and the allegations levelled by the Petitioners are nothing but surmises and conjectures.

6. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. The perusal of both the impugned orders as well as the whole record reveals that the Respondent No,1 and the learned Election Appellate Tribunal have categorically dealt with all the objections raised by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has appended nothing with the file which supports his contentions and counter the information/data provided by the Respondent No,6 as required under the law. Furthermore, the grounds mentioned by the Petitioner in all the Petitions as well as the allegations levelled by him which flatly refused by the Respondent No,6, carry the case towards factual controversy that cannot be resolved by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court rather the same can be done through proper procedure. As such, it has been rightly observed in the impugned orders that the matter requires factual probe which cannot be undertaken at this stage. It is observed here that the Election Commission of Pakistan is not precluded from looking into this matter and exercise of its powers 'under the provisions of Elections Act, 2017 and Elections Rules, 2017 in case a misdeclaration is discovered at any stage regarding concealment of material facts viz: assets etc. Guidance in this regard can be sought from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case reported as Rai Hassan Nawaz v, The Election Commission of Pakistan and others (2013 CLC 1101) wherein it was held as under:-- "17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the question whether the declaration/statements of the candidate in the nomination paper were false or incorrect in any material particular, cannot be ascertained without carrying out a factual probe. This exercise cannot be undertaken in the present constitutional jurisdiction and could not have been gone into by the Returning Officer or the learned Appellate Tribunal in summary jurisdiction. Therefore, keeping in view the constitutional requirement of due process laid down in Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, this Court cannot determine with certainty, at this stage, whether qualifications/ disqualifications under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution are attracted against the candidate.

18. In view of the above, it is best that this matter be taken up by the Election Commission of Pakistan under Representation of the People Act, 1976 and dealt with in accordance with law in terms of pronouncements of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089)."

7. We are in concurrence with the findings of the learned Election Appellate Tribunal who strengthened his findings by relying upon the case reported as Ghazanfar All v. Noor Muhammad and others (PLD 2011 Lahore 11) and Khalid Mehmood v. Rana Muhammad Jabal (2017 CLC (Note)

179).

8. We, therefore, agree with the findings of the Respondents Nos,1 and 5 which rightly dismissed the objection petitions filed by the Petitioner and do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders which have been passed strictly in consonance with the spirit of law, as such do not warrant any interference by us. Consequently, all the interference by us. Consequently, all the petitions in hand, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed in limine.