' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks setting aside of impugned order dated 30-7-2001 passed by the learned District Returning Officer, by which he has declared the respondents Nos.l and 2 as successful candidates for Nazim and Naib Nazim from Union Council Gonaur Halqa No.146, Tehsil Kamoki District Gujranwala.
2. The brief facts of the case ate that the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 4 have contested election for the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim of the said Union Council. The petitioners secured 3400 votes and they were declared as successful candidates.
3. During scrutiny of nomination papers respondent No.1, contesting candidate has raised objection that Ali Hassan was not matriculate. The objection was overruled and nomination papers of Ali Hassan petitioner were accepted and against the acceptance of nomination papers an appeal was filed by respondent No.1 before District Returning Officer which was also dismissed.
4. Muhammad Ishfaq, voter, filed Writ Petition No.4482 of 2001 against the order of acceptance of nomination papers on the ground that he has produced forged matriculation certificate. This Court vide order dated 20-6-2001 has rejected the nomination papers of Ali Hassan and declared that he was not qualified to contest the election as he was not matriculate, as a consequence thereof petitioner No.1, Jameel Sadiq candidate for the seat of Nazim as was in the panel of Ali Hassan also became disqualified.
5. Respondents Nos.l and 2 have already filed the election petition before the Election Tribunal and vide order dated 28-6-2001 the election petition was disposed of as having become infructuous because no alive issue was in the election petition as nomination papers of Returned Candidate Ali Hassan had already been rejected, through judgment dated 20-6-2001.
6. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 moved an application dated 12-7-2001 before the District Returning Officer, Gujranwala for the issuance of notification of their success as the petitioners have been de-notified. Vide impugned order dated 30-7-2001 the learned District Returning Officer declared the respondents Nos.1 and 2 as the returned candidates.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the District Returning Officer has no jurisdiction under any provision of law to have declared respondents Nos.1 and 2 as the returned candidates in place of the petitioners. He further contends that the impugned order is wholly mala fide, illegal and without jurisdiction as has been passed with mala fide intention. He also contends that the election petition has already been dismissed by the Election Tribunal, hence, instead of declaring respondents Nos.1 and 2 as successful candidates who admittedly obtained less votes than the petitioners the re-election was only course open which should have been adopted. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners have won the election from respondents Nos.1 and 2 with the margin of 756 votes and majority of the voters have been deprived of their representation by declaring respondents Nos.1 and 2 as successful candidates.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed this petition and has requested for upholding of the impugned order and for its declaration with jurisdiction and with lawful authority.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Petitioner No.2, Ali Hassan candidate for the seat of Naib Nazim along with petitioner No.1 who was candidate for the seat of Nazim jointly formed a panel for contesting of election. The matriculation certificate produced by Ali Hassan at the time of filing of nomination papers was duly objected but the nomination papers were accepted. Hence, in the writ petition this Court through judgment dated 20-6-2001 held that the certificates produced by Ali Hassan was bogus and he was not qualified to contest the election and as a consequence of this decision petitioners Nos.1 and 2 became disqualified to contest the election. Now they have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the District Returning Officer on the different grounds which have been mentioned above. The petitioners are not aggrieved persons to challenge the impugned order as the orders passed against the acceptance of their nomination papers has attained finality and it has been held that they were not qualified to contest the election. Now the notification issued by District Returning Officer whereby the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been declared as successful candidates cannot be challenged by them which can be challenged by other candidates but not by the petitioners as they were not qualified to contest the election. They are not aggrieved persons and the filing of this writ petition by them in order to obtain orders for re-election as the petitioner No.1 wants to contest election by forming another panel cannot be made basis for declaring the impugned order as illegal and unlawful. The petitioner No.1 formed a panel with petitioner No.2 to contest the election.
Admittedly the petitioner No.2 produced the forged document to show his qualification which was found bogus. Hence, the petitioner No.1 will also sink and swim with petitioner No.2 and now he cannot get the benefit of his own misdeeds. I will not comment on the merits and demerits or lawfulness of the orders passed by the District Returning Officer as this petition has not been filed by the persons who are aggrieved by the order. It has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioners that other contesting candidates have filed a writ petition in this Court against the impugned order which will be decided by this Court on its own merits and this decision will not be a bar on the decision of the said writ petition. This petition is dismissed as has been filed by the persons who were finally declared not qualified to contest the election, being not maintainable.