Rao TARIQ MEHMOOD vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD
This is a civil review application filed against the order of the High Court in a writ petition concerning election nomination papers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who sought to introduce new documents regarding the transfer of company shares and the rescheduling of bank loan liabilities through a review petition, could be considered free from disqualification as a bank loan defaulter on the relevant date of submitting nomination papers. The Lahore High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the scope of review is narrow and that the petitioner remained a defaulter of a bank loan as the decretal amount was yet to be fully paid and the proposed repayment schedule had not materialized into a final, fully complied agreement. The key principle laid down is that a candidate remains a loan defaulter for electoral disqualification purposes until the decretal debt is completely satisfied, and fresh documents not originally produced before the Returning Officer or in the main petition cannot be entertained in a narrow review jurisdiction to overturn an earlier decision.
- Whether a candidate who has entered into a proposed rescheduling arrangement for a bank loan can be considered free from disqualification as a defaulter before the entire decretal amount is paid?
- Can new documents not available at the time of submission of nomination papers be introduced in a review petition to overturn an election disqualification order?
- What is the scope of review regarding the admission of fresh documents and evidence not originally placed on the record of the main writ petition?
- Section 14(5A), Representation of the People Act, 1976
- Section 14(3)(c), Representation of the People Act, 1976
ORDER
This is an application for review of the order dated 17-9-2002 passed in Writ Petition No,16711/2002, titled as Rao Tariq Mehmood v. Election Tribunal etc. The review is sought on the ground that the documents attached with the review petition were not available to the petitioner at the time when the nomination papers were submitted by the petitioner before the concerned Returning Officer.
The documents clearly reveal that the petitioner had retired from the Directorship of Rao Associates as borne out by Form 29 dated 28-12-1997. Rao Ilyas Ahmad is the Chief Executive of Rao Associates according to From 29 dated 23-12-2001. He contends that it is evident from Annexures R/3 and R/4 the returns filed in the office of the Registrar Joint Stock Companies respectively on 28-12-1995 and 28-12-1996 that the petitioner had transferred his entire shareholding in the Rao Associates. The petitioner and other shareholders have settled the dispute with the bank as is evident from Annexure R/V. According to him, this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into these documents specially the arrangement of rescheduling of the outstanding liabilities with the bank.
2. The learned Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan submits that the petitioner cannot take the benefit of his own lapse as the petitioner had to file documents along with his nomination papers before the Returning Officer. He further submits that even the rescheduling/settlement with the bank does not improve the case of the petitioner as the petitioner remains a defaulter and on the date of submission of nomination papers he was disqualified.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. Merely because the petitioner has transferred his total shareholding in the Company, as is being asserted, does not absolve him of his liability. Under the decree.
5. As far as the second contention, based on the letter Annexure R/V of the Bank, is concerned, it has no merit. It will be appropriate to reproduce the said letter.
1. "That the appellant is a defaulter of the National Bank of Pakistan against whom and his company M/s. Rao Associates (Pvt) Limited, two Execution Petitions in the Banking Court, Bahawalpur, for recovery of outstanding debts/decretal amount of Rs,3,900,000 in addition to mark-up from the date of institution till realization of the entire decretal amount are pending.
2 That the appellant has now approached the Bank for payment of the entire decretal amount and has promised to pay the same in following manner: A Rs,250,000 shall be paid on 10-9-2002 before 9-00 a.m. B Rs,1,050,000 to be paid up to 3-10-2002. C Rs,600,000 each to be paid on 31-12-2002, 30-3-2003, 30-6-2003. D Rs,600,000 along with 50% of remaining entire calculated mark-up according to decree to be paid on 30-9-2003. E Rs,600,000 along with 50% of remaining entire calculated mark-up in addition to cost of the suit etc. For final adjustment of the decretal amount to be paid on 30-12-2003.
3. That the appellant has given additional properties to the Bank as security for repayment of the entire decretal amount.
4. That the higher authority of the Bank has agreed to accept the above repayment schedule subject to its strict compliance."
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid document reveals that the petitioner is a defaulter as the liabilities against the petitioner in terms of the decree which remain unsatisfied. The petitioner is a defaulter of a bank loan by virtue of the decree passed against him and others in view of section 14(5A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 read with section 14(3)(c) of the said Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had to show that on the date of his nomination as a candidate he did not suffer from any disqualification. According to said letter of the Bank, the outstanding liability is to be cleared up to 30-12-2003 and unless the dues of the Bank are finally paid, the petitioner continues to be a defaulter. Even otherwise the said letter is a proposed arrangement which has yet to ripen in the shape of a formal agreement between the parties.
According to this document a down payment of Rs,2,50,000 was to be made on 10-9-2002. The petitioner has not adduced any document to show that the down payment has been made by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner seeks rehearing of the matter on the basis of the documents which were not even filed on the record of the writ petition. The scope of the review is very narrow as per principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the following judgments:--
(1) Haji Nawab Din v. Qazi Abdul Saeed (1973 SCM R 143).
(2) Muhammad Zafar Ullah Khan v. Muhammad Khan and another (1975 SCM R 473).
3. Mst. Shamim" Akhtar v. Syed Alim Hussain and others.(1975 SCM R 16).
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Review petition, the same is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Dr. Fahmida Mirza and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others 2024 CLC 1253
- Haji NASIR MEHMOOD vs Mian IMRAN MASOOD and others 2010 PLD Supreme Court 1089
- Mian M. AZAM CHAILA vs WAJID ALI KHAN and others 2009 PLD Lahore 449
- Mian MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Khawaja MUHAMMAD ASIF and 4 others 2005 CLC 219