ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Constitutional Petition No. D – 618 of 2022

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Hearing of case

1. For orders on office objections at Flag-A

2. For hearing on CMA No.2422/2022 (Stay Application)

3. For hearing of main case

14.06.2022

Mr. Riaz Ali Maitlo, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Tariq Maitlo, Advocate for respondents No. 9 & 10.

Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, D.A.G.

Mr. Ali Raza Balouch, A.A.G.

Mr. Zeeshan Haider Qureshi, Law Officer, ECP.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.–The respondents No. 9 and 10 filed their nomination as joint candidates to contest Local Council Elections-2022 for the seats of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of Union Council No.85, Lal Bux Kandhro, Taluka Kingri, District Khairpur (Rural), which was accepted by the respondent No.7 (Returning Officer) after scrutiny. Against that acceptance, the petitioner, who is also contesting candidate for the seat of Chairman of the same U.C., preferred Election Appeal No. 41/2022, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order, dated 26.05.2022, by observing that in view of section 36 (1) of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 (“the Act”) and Art. 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973(“the Constitution”) neither the respondents No. 9 and 10 nor their dependent (father) have obtained loan for an amount of two million rupees as testified by the Manager, ZTBL. It is against that orders, that the instant Const. Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 10 sworn a false affidavit in support of his nomination paper to the effect that he had not availed any loan facility from any bank and that there was no outstanding financial liability against him, but true fact of the matter is that the said respondent is defaulter of respondent No.11/ZTBL to the tune of Rs. 13,05,922/-, and in this regard the respondent No.11 issued a letter, dated 19.05.2022, to respondent No.7; besides, the respondent No.10 is defaulter of respondent No.12/ SEPCO of Rs. 1,59,170/- hence, the nomination of respondents No. 9 and 10 is liable to be rejected by setting aside the impugned orders.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents No.9 & 10, as well as learned D.A.G., A.A.G. and Law Officer of Election Commission of Pakistan have fully supported the impugned orders.

4. Heard, record perused.

5. It appears from the perusal of the record that the father of the respondent No. 10, namely, Ghulam Akbar had availed a finance facility from ZTBL and aforesaid amount of Rs.13,05,922/- is outstanding against him. However, the respondent No. 10 himself is not defaulter of any bank. It also appears that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to subscribe his contention regarding default of the respondent No.10 in payment of utility bills.

6. It may be observed that under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act, a person disqualifies from being elected or chosen as and from being a member of the Council, if he is for the time being disqualified or chosen as a member of the Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force. The qualification and disqualification for the membership of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) are provided under Articles 62 & 63 of the Constitution. However, under clause (n) of sub-article (1) of the Article 63 of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if he has obtained a loan for an amount of two million rupees or more, from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or cooperative body in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, which remains unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has got such loan written off.

7. In the instant case, it is matter of the record that the respondent No. 10 has not obtained a loan for an amount of two million rupees from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or cooperative body in his name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, and by no stretch of the imagination, his father could be dependent of him.

8. For the foregoing facts and reasons, we have found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders requiring any interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed along with listed application, with no order as to costs.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit