IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA/

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR 

General Seats in the National Assembly as well as Provincial Assembly of Sindh

of Larkana Division (NA-190 to NA-197) & (PS-01 to 17), constituted in

pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Elections Act, 2017,

by Election Commission of Pakistan, vide Notification No.F.2(7)/2023-Coord,

dated 24^th December, 2023).  

Election Appeal No. 05 of 2024.

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Appellant       :           Samiullah Abro.

Respondents  :          ADC-II Larkana/ R.O NA-195, Larkana-II, & others.

            Messrs Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, Shakeel Ahmed S. Abro, Qazi Manzoor Ahmed and Muhammad Hanif Noonari Advocates for appellant.

            Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General along with        Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Asstt. A.G.

            Mr. Ghulam Asghar Khichi, Deputy Attorney General.

            Mr. Shafquat Rasool Narejo, Assistant Director (Law), Election Commission of Pakistan, Larkana Division.

Ms. Farzana Mirani, ADC-II, Larkana, (Returning Officer NA-195, Larkana-II) General Elections-2024

Date of hearing         :           09.01.2024.

Date of order             :           09.01.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- The appellant Samiullah Abro filed his nomination form for the seat of Member, National Assembly from NA-195, Larkana-II, which after scrutiny was rejected by the Returning Officer vide Order dated 30.12.2023, on the ground on concealment of asset i.e. a vehicle bearing registration No. AMC-682 as reported by Director (E&T) Larkana vide letter No.11161, dated 28.12.2023 in view of Section 62 (9)-C of Election Act, 12017.  As such, the appellant has filed instant appeal, thereby challenging the rejection of his nomination papers.

            2.         Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that, the Returning officer has committed gross illegality while rejecting the nomination form of the appellant. Per learned counsel the appellant denies ownership/ possession of the vehicle in question, as he has no knowledge about the said vehicle to be registered in his name and that the report/ letter of Director Excise & Taxation Larkana is based on malafide intention. He further contended that the Returning Officer neither apprised the appellant about this minor defect at the time of scrutiny nor granted him time to rectify it. Learned counsel further added that, the appellant has no objection if the aforesaid vehicle would have been seized by the authorities. Per learned counsel it was for the concerned authorities to confiscate the vehicle in question and take penal action against the appellant, when it is dis-owned by the appellant. Learned counsel further contended that, this was a minor and not a substantial defect, and it was within the powers and discretion of the Returning Officer to allow such minor defect to be remedied. In support of their contention learned counsel relied upon case of Yasir Aftab v. Irfan Gull and others reported in 2023 SCMR-206.

            3.         Conversely, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the Election Commission of Pakistan, Larkana Division assisted by the Returning Officer opposed this appeal by contending that at the time of scrutiny of papers, the appellant was apprised about the objection came on surface against him and he was provided sufficient time and opportunity to rectify the objection, but he failed to rectify it. Not only this but the fact that vehicle in question stands registered in the name of appellant was also available on the relevant portal, as well as its screenshot was provided to the appellant well within time.

            4.         On one hand, there is objection in writing by the objector supported with documentary proof, and on other hand there is simple denial on the part of appellant that the vehicle does not belong to him. When, juxtaposed, the version of objector gets more weight. Moreover, as per version of the Returning Officer, the appellant was provided sufficient time and opportunity to rectify the objection, but he did not show any seriousness and failed to rectify it. The contentions as raised by learned counsel for appellant require deeper appreciation, which at this stage is not supposed to be made by this Tribunal, as under sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Election Act, 2017, this Tribunal is vested with powers to deal with matters only summarily. The impugned order passed by the Returning Officer seems to be proper and does not require interference by this Tribunal.

            5.         In view of above, the instant appeal is held to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

                                                       Judge

Ansari