ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                             C.P.No.D-  2328   of  2018

DATE       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

10.07.2018.

Mr. Rasool Bux Solangi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Liaquat Ali Sangrasi, Advocate for Election Commission of Pakistan.

Mr. Jan Ali Junejo, Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G.

                    =

          This is a constitution petition impugning the decisions of the Returning Officer dated 14.06.2018 and that of the Appellate Tribunal dated 22.06.2018, wherein at both the forums, the petitioner has been declined entertainment of his nomination form for PS-66 Hyderabad-V.

2.       Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although there were typing mistakes present, the Returning Officer during the process of scrutiny in violation of the provision of Section 62 of the Elections Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has not provided him the opportunity of correcting the same. It is further contended that the petitioner had shown his income which was clarified before the Returning Officer coming from a bus owned by his father yet his nomination was rejected on the ground of concealment. It is also contended on part of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is not having any assets in his name and he was working as manager of his father in respect of the said bus and as such was not having any assets to disclose.

3.       Learned counsel for the Election Commission contended that the contradictions are present in the documents filed by the petitioner and in this respect he has referred to the statement of assets and liabilities Form-B as submitted u/s 60, 110 and 173 of the said Act which is blank, whereas, in other documents income has been shown alongwith the occupation of the petitioner shown as businessman in the affidavit as filed by the petitioner and that income from share of business was also mentioned therein. He supports the impugned orders.  

4.       Learned A.A.G has referred to said documents also and submits that the said variation do not amount to mistake but concealment as the said amounts are substantial yet the same are without the resulting assets. He also supports the impugned orders.

5.       Learned A.A.G. relied upon the case of of Rai Hassan Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Ayub and others reported in PLD 2017 Supreme Court page 70 alongwith an order passed by this circuit court in C.P.No.D-2299/2018, contends that honest-full and true particulars are required on the part of a candidate in his nomination papers which prima facie are not present in this matter as such the orders are not liable to be disturbed.  

6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal contends that no assets pertaining to the petitioner were brought before the Returning Officer or the Appellate Tribunal as such in view of the case reported as Malik Javed Awan v. Saghir Ahmed Qadri, Returning Officer (1993 MLD page 2471), the petitioner cannot be considered for concealment.

7.       We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. It is observed that the petitioner had himself given his net assets at paragraph T of the affidavit in the sum of Rs.5,89,500/- being net assets as on 30^th June of current financial year, whereas, the net assets as on 30^th June of previous financial current year was specified as 461,000/- alongwith the increase of 112,500/- as shown therein. The said assets are not in consonance with the income as also shown therein being of Rs.310,000/- in the year 2015 increasing to Rs.350,000/- in the year 2016 and Rs.375,000/- in the year 2017. It is further observed that the petitioner was provided with opportunity as specified in the order of the Returning Officer clarification of which were also attempted however the petitioner had shown the presence of bus as his own and petitioner disclosed that the bus also belongs to his father as such he preferred not to disclose the details. The matter of discrepancy is also found present and discussed in the order of learned Appellate Tribunal wherein also no satisfaction was brought on record. In the present circumstances, we do not find any ground whereby it could be considered that any fundamental right of the petitioner was violated in the orders impugned and as a result, the petition stood dismissed with costs.

          These are the reasons of our short order dated 10.07.2018.

                                                                                        JUDGE

                                                          JUDGE

Tufail