IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH
AT SUKKUR.
Constt: Petition No.D- 3923 of
2015
DATE ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
FOR KATCHA PESHI.
03rd.
November, 2015.
Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Noor Hassan Malik, Asstt: A.G
Mr. MianMumtazRabbani, D.A.G.
Through
instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12.10.2015,
passed by the Appellate Authority/ District & Sessions Judge,
NaushahroFeroze in Election Appeal No.56
of 2015, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 has been allowed and
the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected, on the ground of
default in payment of SEPCO charges.
Learned
Counsel for petitioner submits that no such objection was raised by the
respondent No.5 or SEPCO authorities at the time of filing objections nor such
bill was issued by SEPCO, whereas, at the instance of respondent, who have
generated a false exorbitant bill. However, the petitioner has now paid the
SEPCO dues amounting to Rs.2,58,916-00, whereas, if the Returning Officer or
Appellate Authority would have confronted the petitioner with such objection,
and would have granted time to pay such bill, the said outstanding amount in
respect of utility charges could have been paid earlier. Per learned Counsel,
except above objection, which has been removed on voluntarily payment of such
bill by the petitioner, the petitioner is otherwise fully eligible to contest
the forthcoming elections, hence prays that the impugned order may be set-aside
and the nomination form of the petitioner may be accepted and he may be allowed
to contest the forthcoming elections.
Notices
were issued, pursuant to which Mr. Muhammad Asim Malik, Advocate filed
Vakalatnama as well as objections on
behalf of respondent No.5 and submits
that since the petitioner was defaulter of SEPCO charges, therefore, he was not
entitled to contest the elections.
Learned
Asstt: A.G and D.A.G contended that the petitioner was not confronted with such
objection regarding default in respect of SEPCO charges by the Returning
Officer nor was provided any opportunity by the Appellate Authority, to cure
such defect by making payment of electricity charges, therefore, the petitioner could not remove
such defect, which is not substantial in nature, particularly the said bill has
been paid voluntarily. It has come on record that the petitioner has paid such
outstanding charges of SEPCO hence, there is no default on his part, therefore,
the impugned order may be set-aside and the nomination form of the petitioner
may be accepted.
We
have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and
impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority in the instant case, which
reflects that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on the ground
of default in payment of SEPCO charges, whereas, petitioner was neither
confronted with such objection nor such opportunity was provided to petitioner
for payment of such outstanding charges by the appellate authority. The
petitioner has voluntarily paid such amount in respect of SEPCO charges, and
presently there is no default on the part of the petitioner in this regard,
whereas, under similar circumstances, this bench as well as other benches of
this Court, have already allowed such candidates to contest elections on
payment of defaulted amount of the utility bills. Accordingly, instant petition
stands allowed and impugned order is set-aside. The Returning Officer is
directed to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and issue Form VIII
in accordance with law at earliest.
JUDGE
JUDGE
A.R.BROHI