AHMAD ALI PAUNTA Versus RETURNING OFFICER, N.A. 136, MUZAFFARGARH

SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J. ‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the order, dated 26‑12‑1996 whereby the Returning Officer has accepted the nomination papers of Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi respondent No.4.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the notice issued by Excise and Taxation Officer, Muzaffargarh, a sum of. Rs.3,78,066 is outstanding against respondent No.4 and the said amount has not been paid by him. Accordingly he is a defaulter and his nomination papers should have been rejected by the Returning Officer.

3. On the other hand it is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the concern namely "M/s. Tanvir Imran Cotton Ginning, Pressing and Oil Mills" is owned by Tanvir Imran son of Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 himself has got no concern whatsoever with the said firm. Neither respondent No.4 has got any share in the said concern nor the said concern is being looked after by respondent No.4. Rather said concern is being run by Tanvir Imran who is independent assessee of the Income Tax Department. No amount is outstanding against respondent No.4 and as such the Returning Officer was justified in accepting his nomination paper.

4. It is also stated by Ghulam Rasool, A.E.T.O., that Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi respondent No.4 has not been shown as a partner in the abovesaid concern and that notice has been issued to him simply because he is father of Tanvir Imran and looks after the interest of his son. He states that no amount is outstanding against respondent No.4.

5. The nomination papers of respondent No.4 have been challenged on the ground that Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi is a defaulter regarding the payment of tax pertaining to the Excise and Taxation Department. As admitted by the representative of Excise and Taxation Department, respondent No.4 has got no interest in the said concern and no amount of the department is outstanding against him. This admission alone is sufficient to dislodge the appellant. Accordingly, it is held that the Returning Officer was justified in accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.4. There is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

A.A./167/E Appeal dismissed