ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Constt: Petition No.D-29 of 2024

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Present:

Mr.Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

Mr.Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana.

1. For orders on M.A.No.94/2024 (U/A).

2. For orders on office objection “A”.

3. For orders on M.A.No.95/2024 (E/A).

4. For hearing of main case.

16.01.2024

M/S. Khan Muhammad Sangi & Sikandar Sadar Siddiqui, Advocate(s) for the petitioner.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

1. Granted.

2. Over-ruled.

3 & 4. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that the private respondent filed nomination paper to contest election from PS-05 (Kashmore-II); it was accepted by the Returning officer concerned by over-riding the objections, so filed, by the petitioner; such acceptance of nomination paper of the private respondent was impugned by the petitioner by preferring an election appeal; it was dismissed by learned Election Appellate Tribunal at Larkana; such dismissal of his election appeal, the petitioner has impugned before this Court by way of instant constitutional petition.

It is contended by learned counsel(s) for the petitioner that the private respondent has concealed the plots and vehicles owned by him by filing incorrect statement, therefore, he was disqualified to contest election and such aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the Returning officer and learned Election Appellate Tribunal. By contending so, they sought for setting aside of impugned order(s) with rejection of nomination paper of the private respondent, as he is neither “Sadiq or Ameen”.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

The objection with regard to concealment of the plots and vehicles, allegedly owned by the private respondent, was raised by the petitioner subsequent to scrutiny of his nomination paper by filing a statement; yet has been addressed by learned Election Appellate Tribunal adequately. The plots and vehicles are actually owned by the private respondent or otherwise is involving factual controversy; the same could not be resolved by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under the deception that the private respondent has filed an incorrect statement of his assets. The declaration with regard to one being “Sadiq or Ameen” could not be arrived at in a summarily manner. No illegality is noticed which may justify this Court to interfere with the order(s) of Returning officer concerned or that of learned Election Appellate Tribunal at Larkana, by way of instant constitutional petition; it is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE