C.P No. D – 3928 of 2015

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For hearing of C.M.A No. 10988/2015.

03-11-2015

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Dayo, advocate for the petitioner.

M/s Ghulamullah Memon advocates for respondent No.6.

Mr. Noor Hassan Malak, learned A.A.G.

Mr. Mian Mumtaz Rabbani, learned D.A.G.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority in Election Appeal No. 135/2015, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.6 has been allowed and the order of rejection of nomination paper, passed by the Returning Officer has been set-aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 did not file any proper declaration regarding assets. Certain assets were concealed, therefore, the respondent No.6 was not entitled in terms of election laws and rules.

3. Pursuant to notice, respondent No.6 shown appearance and Mr. Ghulamullah Memon, advocate has filed vakalatnama on his behalf and also filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. He has denied the allegations as contained in the instant petition and submits that impugned order does not suffer from illegality or irregularity and does not require any interference of this court. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 has filed complete nomination form along with details of the assets, which is available at page No.19 as annexure “C” and has not concealed any assets as alleged by the petitioner. It has been further stated that the alleged liability of SEPCO and taxes, is not in respect of respondent No.6, as already held by the Appellate Authority, hence the allegations are false, therefore, instant petition may be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are other assets in addition to assets which have been declared by respondent No.6 at page No.19, annexure ‘C’ in the name of respondent No.6, which have been concealed by the respondent No.6, details of which have been given in annexure “C-1” to “C-7”, therefore, the respondent No.6 is not eligible to contest the election.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6, after consultation with his client, who is present in Court, has denied such allegations and submits that the declaration regarding assets submitted by the respondent No.6 is true and complete, whereas, no such objection was raised by the petitioner before the Returning Officer or even before the Appellate Authority, whereas disputed documents have been placed before this court for the first time, which cannot be examined by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, hence prayed that instant petition may be dismissed and respondent No.6 may be allowed to contest the forthcoming elections.

5. Learned A.A.G and learned D.A.G, in view of herein above facts and circumstances of the case, supported the impugned orders and submit that the same do not suffer from any error or illegality, whereas the documents produced by the petitioner for the first time before this court cannot be entertained at this stage, particularly, when the same have been seriously disputed by the respondent No.6.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the record with their assistance and have also perused the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, which reflects that the respondent No.6 has filed a valid nomination form along with assets declaration and has categorically stated that he has not concealed any material fact nor he is defaulter of payment of SEPCO charges. The documents produced by the petitioner before this Court for the first time have been seriously disputed, whereas, the respondent No.6 has categorically stated that the declaration of assets filed by him before the Returning Officer, available at page No.19 as annexures “C” is complete in all respects.

7. Accordingly, we are not inclined to examine the fresh allegations or disputed facts at this stage when elections are scheduled for 19.11.2015. Moreover, we do not find any error or illegality and also not found any error in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, which is maintained. Instant petition is dismissed along with listed application. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise objection with regard to eligibility of respondent No.6 before proper forum by filing proper proceedings in accordance with law.

Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A