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. 28 of 2024.

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Appellant       :                       Mst. Naheed.  

Respondents :                       Returning Officer,  PS-14, Kamber-Shahdadkot-I, and others.

            Mr. Sharjeel Sattar Bhatti, Advocate for appellant.

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

            Mr. Oshaq Ali Sangi, Assistant Attorney General.

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

            Mr. Mohsin Ali, Assistant Commissioner Shahdadkot (Returning Officer  PS-14, Kamber-Shahdadkot-I) General Elections-2024.

Date of hearing         :           06.01.2024.

Date of order             :           06.01.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through this appeal, appellant Mst. Naheed has called in question the order dated 30.12.2023 with regard to rejection of her nomination form for the seat of Member Provincial Assembly of Sindh, i.e.       PS-14 Kamber-Shahdadkot-I, passed by respondent No.1 (Returnong Officer), inter-alia on the ground that, she has been in dues/ arrears of SEPCO as reported by S.D.O (Operatons) Sub Division Shahdadkot vide letter No. 1100-1102, dated 28.12.2023.

            2.         The learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that, before filing of her nomination form the appellant obtained “No-Dues-Certificate” from the office of the Executive Engineer Operation Division SEPCO Kamber counter-signed by three officer of the SEPCO, namely, Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Officer and the Executive Engineer and filed such certificate along with her nomination papers; however at the time of scrutiny Sub Divisional Officer (Operation) Sub Division SEPCO Shahdadkot filed letter No. 1100-1102, dated 28.12.2023 showing arrears worth Rs.1125000/- against appellant on account of “Advance Detention Bill”. Per learned counsel though the same officer already issued “No-Dues-Certificate” in favor of the appellant, but later-on he (Sub Divisional Officer of SEPCO) with malafide intention and ulterior motives on the instance of the rivals of the appellant managed aforesaid letter and on the basis of such letter the Returning Officer rejected the nomination form of the appellant. 

            3.         Admittdly, a “No-Dues-Certificate” dated 22.12.2023 was issued in favor of the appellant in respect of electricity connection having Reference                No. 08382120024971, by the office of the Executive Engineer Operation Division SEPCO Kamber duly counter-signed by three officers, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Officer and the Executive Engineer, however subsequently one of these officers viz. Sub Divisional Officer issued letter No.1100-1102, dated 28.12.2023 showing arrears worth Rs.1125000/- against appellant in respect of the same electricity connection on accoutn of “Advance Detention Bill”. This prima-facie leads to a presumption that the officer has acted malafidely and the bill appears to be unjustified. Morever, perusal of the electricity bill reflects that it does not bear the name of appellant and it is “Advance Bill”, which too in resepect of “detection”,  with no specification of any allegation or source of “detection”. Moreover, it is worth montioning that though there is no provision of “detection bill” etc. in the Electricity Act, 1910.

            4.         In view of above, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 with regard to rejection of nomination form of the appellant passed by respondent No.1 (Returning Officer P.S-15-Kamber-Shahdadkot-I) is not sustainable, as such it is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the Returning Oficer P.S-14 Kamber-Shahdadkot-I, is directed to revise Form-32 within stipulated period in respect of

the appellant.

                                                       Judge

Ansari