ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

Constt: Petitions No.D-       4215   of 2015

 

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

 

 

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

 

 

18th. November, 2015.

 

 

                        Mr.  Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate along with petitioner.

 

                        Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, Asstt: A.G.

 

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

 

 

 

                        Through instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the nomination of respondent No.5 namely Muhammad Saleh S/o Khuda Bux Rajper, on the ground of default in payment of SEPCO charges.

 

                        Notices were issued, pursuant to which respondent No.5 along with his Counsel Mr. Nusrat Hussain Memon, Advocate shown appearance who has filed his Vakalatnama, and has produced  three paid bills in the name of Muhammad Saleh, which reflects  that amount of Rs.100000/-,  Rs.39,752/- and Rs.6826/- have been paid by respondent No.5 towards SEPCO charges.  Learned Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that there is no amount outstanding against him in respect of any utility charges, whereas, the aforesaid bills have been paid under protest as respondent No.5 had already sold out such property on which such bill has been issued. As regards other bill placed on record by learned Counsel for petitioner, it has been stated that though the said bill is not issued in the name of respondent No.5 and allegedly pertains to his father, however, the respondent has also made payment of such bill in installments. Learned Counsel for respondent has raised serious objection as to maintainability of instant petition, as according to learned Counsel, the petitioner did not raise such objections before Appellate Authority as such appeal was withdrawn and thereafter the petitioner has filed instant petition with malafide intentions, therefore, requests that instant petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

                        Learned Asstt: A.G and D.A.G in view of herein above facts and paid bills in respect of SEPCO charges, supported the contentions of learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and submit that instant petition appears to be motivated which may be dismissed.

 

                        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reflects that prima-facie, there is no objection on the nomination form of respondent No.5, which was duly accepted by the Returning Officer, whereas, appeal filed by the petitioner was also withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner has filed instant petition by submitting the copies of Electricity bills, for the first time, which even do not pertain to respondent. Such practice cannot be approved by this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction, as we cannot examine the disputed facts. Moreover, the respondent No.5 has even paid the disputed bills and placed on record the copies of such paid bills, which fact has not been disputed. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed.

 

JUDGE

JUDGE                     

 

 

A.R.BROHI