ORDERSHEET
HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
C.P No. D-2478 of 2022
 |
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
Mr. Wali Muhammad Thebo, advocate for petitioner
Mr. Arbab Ali Hakro, advocate for respondent No. 5
Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl. A.G Sindh.
Mr. Ashfaque Nabi Qazi, Asst. Attorney General Pakistan
Mr. Zaheer Ababs, Law Officer ECP
Date of hearing: 18.07.2022
Date of decision: 20.07.2022
***
The petitioner’s grievance is that the Returning Officer UC Jarki @ Chamber accepted the nomination papers of Respondent No.5 vide order dated 19.06.2022 despite the petitioner’s objections regarding concealment of assets and his vote being registered at Clifton, Karachi. Then, the petitioner filed Election Appeal No.08 of 2022 which too was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2022 and the respondent No.5 was allowed to contest in the elections.
The learned Appellate Authority examined the validity of declaration of each and every asset of the respondent No.5 and observed that the objection regarding the respondent No.5 not showing jewelry and salary as per the FBR report pertained to the year 2020 and no updated document had been filed. However, the Appellate Authority failed to consider the fact that respondent No.5 had admitted the concealment of bank accounts maintained by him, especially Account No. 31010105615747 of Meezan Bank Tando Allahyar. Respondent No.5 also failed to disclose any details about his income changing from the year 2020 to year 2022 as the report filed by the petitioner pertaining to the year 2020 shows a clear discrepancy in the income of the respondent No.5 which he has been unable to justify. It was argued by the counsel for respondent No.5 that it was not a requirement of law to declare all assets in terms of Sindh Local Government Act 2013 and in support of his contentions, he has cited the case law reported as Khalid Ahmed Memon v Deen Muhammad Talpur and 2 others (2016 MLD 1527) and Amir Raza v Provincial Election Commission through DEO (2016 YLR 431). However, we are afraid that this contention holds no weight. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saeed Ahmed and others (C.P No. D-633 of 2022) observed regarding the declaration of assets that:-
“In view of the above discussion, we hold that a candidate contesting the Local Government Elections under SLGA is required to disclose/declare his assets on solemn affirmation in the prescribed form at the time of filing his nomination papers which requirement is mandatory and in case of noncompliance of this mandatory requirement, his nomination papers would be liable to be rejected. The petitioners have not been able to make out a case justifying interference in the impugned orders by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.”
(emphasis supplied)
There is no denial to the fact that together with the nomination paper, the respondent No.5 filed his affidavit stating therein on Oath that; statement of his assets and liabilities disclosed by him are correct and complete to his knowledge and belief. The respondent No.5 willfully concealed the details of all his assets which was in direct violation of the affidavit submitted by him. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Muhammad Ahmed Chatta v Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema and others (2016 SCMR 763) has been pleased to observe that:-
“9. From the perusal of record, it is established that while submitting the nomination papers, the respondent has not submitted statement regarding assets of his spouse as required under section 12 of the Act, 1976. The learned Election Tribunal, without taking into consideration this aspect of the case and while holding that respondent has not disclosed assets owned by his spouse and the account maintained by him, dismissed the election petition merely on the ground that mens rea is not proved and further the government exchequer has not suffered any loss on account of non-disclosure of these material facts. This finding of the Tribunal is against the spirit of law and as such calls for interference.”
The learned appellate authority wrongly upheld the orders of the Returning Officer while accepting the nomination papers of the respondent No.5 who had intentionally and willfully concealed his assets which he was required to provide details on solemn affirmation. For these reasons, instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority and the Returning Officer are set aside. Respondent No.5 is not qualified to contest in the Local Government Elections of 2022, as such the Returning Officer is directed to issue a revised list of contesting candidates by removing the name of respondent No.5 from the same.
JUDGE