ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

(APPELLATE TRIBUNAL)

Election Appeal No.04 of 2024

Mir Muzammil Abro

v/s.

Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Larkana and others

Appellant:                    Through M/s. Shakeel Ahmed Abro, Qazi Manzoor Ahmed and Muhammad Hanif Noonari, Advocates.

Respondents:              Mr. Shafqat Rasool Narejo, Assistant Director/Law Officer, Election Commission of Pakistan, Larkana Division.

Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh assisted by Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh.

Mr. Ghulam Asghar Khichi, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan.

Dates of hearing:        02.01.2024, 04.01.2024, 05.01.2024, 06.01.2024, 08.01.2024 and 09.01.2024.

Date of order:              10.01.2024

O R D E R

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through this election appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 29.12.2023, whereby the nomination papers submitted by him to contest election at NA-194, Larkana, were rejected by the Returning Officer/Respondent No.1, on the ground that the appellant has suppressed some of his properties and has furnished false statement with regard to said properties. 

2.         Learned counsels for the appellant have argued and drawn attention of this Court towards page 79 of the Court file, which depicts the detail of properties owned by the appellant; however, in the remarks the entire property is shown to have been gifted in his favour either by his brother or father. On query of the Court, learned counsel submit that it can be bonafide mistake or innocent omission and that alone does not provide basis for rejection of his nomination papers. They, further, submit that except such omission there is nothing wrong on the part of appellant nor has he made concealment of any fact or false statement, which may warrant rejection of his nomination papers, therefore, by allowing this appeal, impugned order may be set aside, allowing the appellant to participate and contest the elections. In support of their contentions, they refer to the case reported as Yasir Aftab v/s. Irfan Gull and others (2023 SCMR 206).

3.                     The Law Officer of Election Commission of Pakistan, Larkana Division, duly assisted by learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh and Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, oppose this appeal on the ground(s) that the appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands as at the time of scrutiny his legal team was repeatedly asked by the Returning Officer to produce record showing the source of income of the appellant through which he purchased the properties in question, but they failed. As far as the claim that the properties in question were gifted to the appellant by his brother or father, the Law Officer submits that the appellant has not disclosed source of income. He further submits that the claim that properties in dispute were purchased by the appellant and later same were shown by his father to have been gifted to him carries no weight, as, according to law, the third person cannot gift the property to any individual or the legal heir. He further argued that father of the appellant, who is sitting Senator, in his annual tax return has suppressed some facts by showing properties as purchased in the name of his son and in order to mask and/or justify such mistake, the appellant is going to save skin of his father. He, therefore, submits that it is not bonafide mistake, but clear malafide on the part of the appellant, which is to be scrutinized properly. He lastly submits that the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer in terms of Section 62(9)(c) of the Elections Act, 2017 is speaking one and same may be maintained. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon case law reported as 2023 CLC 538.

4.                     Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Since the appellant is the owner of the property (agricultural land), which he had purchased from a stranger through registered sale deed, hence, in such a situation he is ostensible owner of the property on the basis of sale deed and in such circumstances the alleged gift deed, which the appellant claimed through his father is earlier to it, which has been admitted that when the appellant, as per his statement, was owner by gift deed then why he purchased said property through registered sale deed. All this shows that either the gift was not validly made or the registered sale deed was executed for some other motive. Therefore, the appellant could not be allowed to be hot and cold in the same breath. Resultantly, there is no justifiable reason to set aside the impugned order. In such eventuality, the appeal in hand, is hit by mandatory provision of law and is not maintainable. Consequently, instant appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, impugned order passed by Returning Officer NA-194,  Larkana-I is hereby maintained.

          Judge