1. GHULAM RABBANI, J.---By consent, of both learned counsel this Constitutional petition is heard for final hearing. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24-7-2005 and 27-7-2005 passed by learned Returning Officer Union Council Barhbon and learned District Returning Officer/Appellate Authority respectively whereby, the nomination paper filed by the petitioner stands rejected.
2. Relevant facts are that petitioner had filed two nomination papers viz. One for Union Council Barhoon meant for Muslim General seats and another for the seat of a Naib-Nazim of the said Union Council. Both these forms were accepted by the learned Return in Officer Union Council Barhoon vide his order dated 23-7-2005. On the next day of the above two orders learned Returning Officer took up the matter again and recalled his previous orders and rejected th A nomination papers of petitioner on the ground that petitioner was a active member of "Jaish-e- Muhammad", a banned organization as pe report of S.H.O. Police Station Shahpurchakar, received through D.S.P./T.P.O. Shandadpur after the nomination papers of petition were earlier, accepted. Aggrieved by the above orders petitioner filed two separate Appeals bearing Nos.44 of 2005 and 45 of 2005 which too met the same fate by way of dismissal vide two separate orders dated 27-7- 2005, impugned therein. We have heard Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan learned Addl. Advocate-General Sindh. We have also examined the material placed before us. The only question which requires for determination in this Constitution petition is whether the orders of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner were proper and legally, passed on the ground that he is/was an active member of "Jaish-e-Muhammad", a banned organization. In this behalf Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a simple report of police officer, such as S.H.O., without disclosing/referring to any incriminating/adverse record or material on the basis of which such report was made furnished no ground to reject nomination papers of petitioner; moreso, by way of a review of earlier orders dated 24-7-2005 passed by learned Returning Officer concerned, as no powers of review are vested in him. Besides Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque, has referred to a copy of the Letter bearing No, SB/AB/9522, dated 30-6-2005 of Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Branch Hyderabad Region addressed to the District Co-ordiantion Officer, Sanghar to show that the petitioner happens to be not of bad character. We have gone through the said letter and find that the Senior Superintendent of Police has stated therein that "enquiries revealed that there is nothing politically adverse against the petitioner and that there was no objection to him if the arms licence applied for by the petitioner was granted". On 10-8-2005 when this petition came up for hearing we had required the learned Addl. Advocate- General to verify the authenticity of the above mentioned document viz. (letter dated 30-6-2005).
3. In compliance of the above order learned Addl. Advocate-General has informed us that the aforementioned letter dated 30-6-2005 is a genuine document and it was issued by a Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad Region. Learned Addl. Advocate-General on a question whether the Returning Officer had power to review his previous order dated 23-7-2005, replied in negative. Be that as it may; it is not denied that the report of the S.H.O., Shahpurchakar did not envisage therein that there was a track record available with the police that petitioner is/was an active member of a banned organization. Besides, Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad Region vide his letter referred to above, by making the contradictory report about the character of the petitioner has, at this stage, seemingly clouded the report of the S.H.O. There is no doubt that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Branch is at a much elevated position than a S.H.O. Of the D.S.P. Of the area and is more responsible, being regional head of Special Branch of Police. Record shows that petitioner had besides his own affidavit, produced before learned District Returning Officer, affidavits of seven persons of the Union Council in question to show that he was not affiliated with any banned organization including "Jaish-e- Muhammad". Thus we are of the view that petitioner's nomination papers, ought not to have been rejected simply on such a report of S.H.O. Accordingly, we admit this petition to regular hearing, set aside the impugned orders and dispose of this petition with observation that the nomination papers of petitioner in question shall be deemed to have been accepted and he shall be entitled to contest the elections. Learned counsel for the petitioner is required to obtain copy of this order and produce the same before the learned Returning Officer/District Returning Officer at the earliest to proceed further in the matter on the basis of this order and in accordance with law.