IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Constitutional Petition No.D-494 of 2018

Present:

Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro,

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

Petitioner                :    Through Mr.Amjad Hussain Qureshi,

Advocate.

Respondents           :    Through Mr.Rafique Ahmed K. Abro, Advocate for Election Commission of Pakistan  

Mr.Abdul Rasheed Abro, Assistant Attorney General Pakistan.

Date of hearing       :    12.07.2018          

Date of decision      :    18.07.2018                   

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that the petitioner filed a nomination paper to contest election from PS-83,  Dadu-I, it was rejected by learned Returning Officer on 08.06.2018, for want of requisite affidavit in support of the nomination paper. The petitioner impugned the order of rejection of his nomination paper before Election Appellate Tribunal Karachi by way of filing his appeal; it was dismissed on 13.06.2018. The petitioner being aggrieved of above said orders has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant constitutional petition.

2.                It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisite affidavit was submitted by the petitioner at the time of scrutiny of his nomination paper but it was not acknowledged by learned Returning Officer. By contending so, he sought for acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner with opportunity to him to file the requisite affidavit in support of his nomination paper before learned Returning Officer.

3.                Learned counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan as well as learned Assistant Attorney General Pakistan sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition by contending that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by learned Returning Officer for valid reason, on account of his failure to file the requisite affidavit in support of his nomination paper and entire process to conduct the election has already been completed.

4.                We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5.                Admittedly, the affidavit which was required to be filed in support of nomination paper was not filed by the petitioner at the time when he submitted his nomination paper before learned Returning Officer. The oral assertion is not enough to believe that the requisite affidavit was submitted by the petitioner but it was not acknowledged by learned Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of his nomination paper. If the petitioner is permitted to go back and file the requisite affidavit in support of his nomination paper before learned Returning Officer then filing of such affidavit would be subject to filing of objections by rest of the contesting candidates, in that way, the entire process relating to scrutiny of the nomination paper would be put in reverse motion, which obviously would hamper the entire election process. No illegality or irregularity even otherwise is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which may justify making interference with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

6.                For the above said reasons, the instant constitutional petition stands dismissed.

                 JUDGE

                                                                        JUDGE

------------