MUHAMMAD IKRAM UL HAQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs

ORDER

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question the decision dated 10.08.2016 of the Returning Officer/ respondent No.5, accepting the joint nomination paper of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 for the posts of Chairman/Vice-Chairman of Town Committee Daharki and the order dated 13.08.2016, passed by the appellate authority, i.e. District Judge, Ghotki, the respondent No.6, rejecting the appeal filed against the above decision of the respondent No.5.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed their joint nomination paper for the posts of Chairman/Vice Chairman of Town Committee Daharki before the Returning Officer/respondent No.5, which was accepted vide order dated 10.08.2016. The petitioner filed an appeal against the acceptance of nomination paper of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 by the respondent No.5, before the appellate authority i.e. District Judge Ghotki, who after hearing the parties' counsel and examining the record rejected the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.3 was awarded party ticket by the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians Sindh for a seat of Member of Local Council; that the respondent No.3 has now filed nomination paper for the post of Chairman Town Committee Daharki, per him, the respondent No.3 is a defeated from PPPP; that the proposer and seconder of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 being candidates could not propose or second the respondents Nos.3 and 4; and, per him, the nomination paper of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 is liable to be rejected. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders, passed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 may be set-aside, and the nomination paper of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 may be rejected.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 has mainly contended that there is no bar in proposing or seconding the nomination by a candidate; that the respondent No.3 had contested the election as Member of Local Council as an independent candidate and now the respondent No.3 along with the respondent No.4 has filed the joint nomination paper for the posts of Chairman/Vice Chairman of Town Committee Daharki as an independent candidate, per him, there is no question of respondent No.3's being defeated from PPPP. He, therefore, prays that this petition may be dismissed.

5. The learned Assistant Advocate General and the Standing Counsel have adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4.

6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

7. Record reflects that the respondent No.3 had contested for the post of Member of Local Council as an independent candidate and now he along with the respondent No.4 has, filed the joint nomination paper for the posts of Chairman/Vice Chairman of Town Committee Daharki as an independent candidate. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner is contesting for the post of Chairman of Town Committee Daharki on the ticket awarded to him by PPPP.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give proper reply of the query as to how a candidate, who earlier contested for the seat of Member of the Local Council as an independent candidate, be debarred from contesting for the post of Chairman of Town Committee as an independent candidate.

9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.08.2016, passed by the appellate authority reveals that both the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner before him were dealt with properly while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of Returning Officer accepting the joint nomination paper of the respondents Nos.3 and 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders, passed by both the aforementioned Forums, provided for the scheme of filing nomination forms, their scrutiny and appeals against the decisions of acceptance or rejection of nomination forms, regulated by Sindh Local Council (Election Rules) framed under the provisions of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, attracting the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

10. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the considered opinion that this petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

11. Above are the reasons of short order dated 23.08.2016 announced by us whereby this petition was dismissed along with listed applications as well as other pending applications with no order as to costs.

MH/M-7/Sindh Petition dismissed.