Pakistan Case Law
2001 C.L.R. 198

SARFRAZ KHAN and another vs THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR ELECTIONS OF UNION COUNCIL DISTRICT SARGODHA and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2001 C.L.R. 198
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Crl./Civil Petition-Appeals Nos. 3134-L of 2000
Date2000-12-26
Judge(s)Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Rashid Aziz Khan, Sh. Riaz Ahrnad
ResultN/A
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of their nomination papers for contesting the election to the office of Naib Nazim. The Returning Officer had rejected the nomination papers after discovering that while the petitioner's name appeared on the educational certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha, the photograph on the form belonged to another person, and the petitioner gave incorrect information regarding the subjects he had examined in, leading to the conclusion of impersonation and lack of the requisite matriculation qualification. The appellate authority affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the arguments raised by the petitioners concerning the genuineness of the certificate and the photograph were essentially questions of fact which could not be examined in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that factual controversies regarding educational qualifications and identity in election matters fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the High Court can examine questions of fact regarding the genuineness of educational certificates in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a Returning Officer reject nomination papers upon finding that the photograph on an educational certificate belongs to a person other than the candidate?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact by election authorities and the High Court?
nomination paperselection disputeNaib Nazim electionconstitutional jurisdictionquestion of factleave to appealimpersonation

ORDER

SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought, against the order dated 19th of December, 2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner in limine calling in question the rejection of his nomination papers for contesting election to the office of Naib Nazim.

2. Petitioner had filed his nomination papers and an objection was raised that he was not a matriculate. The Returning Officer summoned the relevant record from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary. Education Board Sargodha and found the name of the petitioner and his parentage on the certificate issued by the Board but the photograph on the forms was that of a different person. The Returning Officer also put a few questions to the petitioner to which he stated that he had taken his examination in science subjects whereas record revealed that he appeared in arts subjects. On the basis of this material, the Returning Officer concluded that in fact some body had impersonated the petitioner to take the examination and thus the Returning Officer held the petitioner to be a non-matriculate and rejected his nomination papers. An appeal was taken against the aforesaid order and the appellate authority also upheld the order of the Returning Officer, and thus the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court was invoked but the writ petition was dismissed in terms of order impugned.

3. Mr. M. Mohy-ud-Din Qazi, ASC argues that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was genuine and it was only the Board who could cancel the certificate. Further states that in fact some body had misplaced .The photograph of the petitioner.

4. The arguments 'raised by the learned counsel are essentially the questions of fact and the same could not have gone into in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, even this Court cannot help the petitioner. Accordingly, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss the same accordingly. Leave to appeal is refused.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.