UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- This petition is filed on behalf of the two joint candidates for election to Nazim/Naib Nazim Offices. In view of the settled law that in case of disqualification of one joint A candidate, their panel falls as a whole, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions with respect to petitioner No,1 who is under stronger objection. He has submitted that the petitioner.No,1 is a science graduate, aged 36 years, single and the ldst incumbent Nazirn of the U.C.282 Jinnah Town, Faisalabad. His nomination papers for the same seat were accepted by the learned R.O. After discarding the objection that he is an active member of a banned organization.
On the other hand, learned D.R.O. Accepted the aforesaid objection to the petitioner's candidature and by acting upon the report of the Special Branch disqualified the petitioner from contesting the aforesaid local government election.
2. Before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the adverse Special Branch report against the petitioner is based on three F.I.Rs, lodged with Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad. The first bearing F.I.R. No,475 of 1995 lodged for offences under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. 13/20/65 A.O. 11-B, A.O. 16 MPO, does not include the petitioner as an accused. The second F.I.R. No,54 of 1996 is in respect of offences under sections 353, 186, 224, 225, 34, 13/20/65 A.O., 11-B, A.O. The petitioner was acquitted in this case on 17-2-1999. The third F.I.R.
No,69 of 1996 discloses offences under sections 353, 186, 506, 337-H(2), 13/20/65, 11-B, A.O. The petitioner was acquitted in this case on 31-7-1997. Learned counsel further contends that in spite of being in the public gaze as the incumbent Nazim of the union council there is no complaint about his conduct. Or leanings as an activist of a banned organization. The petitioner was a member of the peace committee nominated by the police during Moharram in the years 2004 and 2005. A certificate of part time teaching by the petitioner in a local missionary school has been placed on record during the course of the hearings to demonstrate his social service profile. Accordingly, the impugned order by the learned D.R.O. Has been attacked in this petition. .3. Learned Addl. A.G and the learned D.A.G have opposed the candidature of the petitioner. In addition to adverse police reports by the Special Branch there is also an objection to the petitioner's condidature by the Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan (I.B.) The opinion expressed in these reports are ad idem in nominating the petitioner as an activist of a banned organization. This is quite apart from a number of criminal cases, already mentioned above, that are registered against him. In Addition the private respondent candidate has also produced material against the petitioner. In one case bearing F.I.R. No,262 of 2005 dated 26-4-2005 in respect of offence under sections 302/34, P.P.C., the complainant has nominated the petitioner as an accused through a supplementary statement.
4. The disqualification relevant to the present discussion is contained in section 152(1)(r) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. It is, couched in the following terms: "has not been and is not involved in activities prejudicial to the ideology, interest, security, unity, solidarity, peace and integrity of Pakistan and its people, and the good order and harmony of society; and" (underling supplied).
5. The nature and quality of evidence required to incur the said disqualification is reflected by the word "involved" used in the said provision. Balentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, 1969 defines the word "involved" to means "implicated, affected or concerned in some degree". To the same effect is the meaning given in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary 1999 Edition which reads "1. Concerned, implicated,
2. Complicated."
6. The mere implication of a candidate in any activity having one or more of the stated prejudicial effects mentioned in section 152 (1) (r) supra falls within the mischief of the said disqualification.
Accordingly, it is not necessary that a person should be accused of or be found guilty of the commission of a criminal offence in order to be disqualified. The degree of his concern or implication in any activity may be much less than an active or responsible role, so long as it has nexus with the prejudicial consequences outlined in the provision. With respect to banned organization, the Election Commission of Pakistan vide its Letter No,F.3(1)/2005-Election dated 18-7- 2005 has notified that present as well as past membership of a candidate in such an organization is a ground of his disqualification from election. This notification can find authority under the Local Government Election Order 2000 read with section 150 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. It dispenses with the need to show any overt act of violence or participation in political activity by a candidate in order to cause his disqualification. Membership of banned organization suffices to demonstrate a mindset which is proscribed.
7. Turning to the facts of this case, the report about the petitioner by the local police authorities is attacked for reflecting a partisan view because of local forces and factors. However, the same cannot be said about the opinion given by the Intelligence Bureau ("IB") about him. The learned Deputy Attorney General along with a competent officer showed the relevant material in camera on 17-8-2005. It has been shown that the petitioner is an activist of a banned organization. His brother was also such an activist. The fact of the matter is that corroborative material about the petitioner is available on record to discredit the petitioner's candidacy.
8. The three F.I.R.s mentioned above allege riotous, intimidatory, physically violent and dangerous conduct by the participants of the respective assemblies. Even if the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges, the mere presence of the petitioner in those occurrences is indicative of his aggressive and hostile nature. This view is reinforced by the explanation given by the petitioner about his implication in the murder case to be a false substitution made at the instance of his political opponents. If the petitioner's explanation is accepted then admittedly his political rivalry is exceptionally bitter and savage. This indicates the petitioner as the incumbent Nazim to have or be capable of repaying in the same coin. The foregoing inference based upon the petitioner's own explanation indicates a present capability to engage in violence. The vigour of the occurrences mentioned in the three F.I.Rs above is still alive. This is sufficient corroboration for the Intelligence and police reports about the petitioner.
9. In the circumstances, a valid case for the petitioner's disqualification is made out and the order passed by the learned DRO is well-founded. In the result this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.