1. RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, C.J.--In this Constitutional petition following relief has been claimed:--- "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to declared that the respondent No,1 is not qualified to become the Member of Senate on the basis of Sanad filed by him in the interest of justice and fair play". The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition as a citizen of Pakistan, Vice-President of Supreme Court Bar Association as also having contested election for the Provincial Assembly Balochistan. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 (Maulvi Agha Muhammad) filed his nomination papers for the election of Senate scheduled to be held on 24-2-2003. His nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer that the University Grants Commission presently the Higher Education Commission (Islamabad) declared the Sanad of the Madressa attached with the nomination papers was not recognized as equivalent for the purpose of contesting election for the Senate. The respondent No,1 feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination papers filed Senate Appeal No,15/2003 before the Member Election Commission of Pakistan for Balochistan, Quetta (Mr.. Justice Ahmad Khan Lashari/Appellate Authority) which was accepted vide order dated 6-2-2003 and the impugned order dated 29-1-2003 passed by the Returning Officer was set aside. Consequently, respondent No,1 was declared to be a validly nominated candidate for contesting Senate Elections, 2003 as a candidate on the basis of party ticket of MMA against general seats. Relevant and operating para. Of the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "I have heard learned Deputy Attorney-General and have gone through the available record as well as the impugned order. The required qualification as provided under Article 8A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order No,7 of 2002) is reproduced below: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 (LI) of 1975, the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (LXXXV) of 1976), or any law for the time being in force, a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member' of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or Provincial Assembly unless he is at least a graduate possessing a Bachelor Degree in any discipline or any degree recognized as equivalent by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII) of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force). The appellant has filed Sanad Shahadat-ul-Alamia fil Uloom ul Islamia Wali Arabia, issued by Al Jamia Al-Deenia Darul Huda, Thehri (Habibabad) Khairpur indicating the appellant possess the required qualification. He has also produced Sanad-ul-Alhaaq showing affiliation of said Madrasa with Wafaq-ul-Madaras-ulArabia Pakistan at Multan, which find place at S.No,1 of Election Commission of Pakistan's Notification dated 25-7-2002. Another certificate dated nil issued by Principal of Al-Jamia-tul Deenia Darul Huda (Habibabad) Thehri Khairpur produced by the appellant shows that the said Ivladrasa is recognized as B.A/M.A. In Islamic Studies and Islamic Culture by the University of Sindh Jamshoro and Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur. Furthermore in response to query made by this Authority, vide Fax dated 4-2-2003 the Wafaq-ul-Madrasa ulArabia Pakistan at Multan has verified the affiliation of the said Madaras with it. In view of the above situation, I am inclined to allow this appeal as appellant possess the qualification as required under Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order No,7 of 2002), as such the impugned order dated 29-1-2003 passed by Returning Officer is set aside and he is directed to include the name of appellant in the list of validly nominated candidate for contesting Senate Election 2003 as a Candidate from party ticket of MMA against General Seats". Raja Rab Nawaz Advocate (petitioner) has been heard at length. He contended that by virtue of provisions of Article 8-A of Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order, 7 of 2002) the respondent No,1 was not qualified to be elected or chosen as Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or Provincial Assembly unless he is at least a graduate possessing a bachelor degree in any discipline or any degree recognized as equivalent by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, but the respondent No,1 since did not possess the required equivalent qualification recognized by the University Grants Commission for the reasons that the Sanad issued and attached with the nomination papers of Madrassa of Al Jamia-tul Deenia Darul Huda, Thehri (Habibabad) claimed to have been affiliated with Wafaq ul-Madrassas ul-Arbia; Pakistan at Multan was not recognized and notified by the University Grant Commission/Higher Education Commission (Islamabad) to be equal to bachelor degree in any discipline, therefore, the respondent No,1 is not qualified to contest elections of the Senate against general seats. To supplement his contention the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court passed in the case of "Maulana Abdullah v. Returning Officer, etc" 2003 SCM R 195 in which it was held by the honourable apex Court that University Grants Commission has restricted the grant of requisite status and recognition to Sanads awarded by Institutions specified in Notification dated 25-7-2002 and has not extended this recognition to the Institutions affiliated with such Institutions. Sanad issued by Institution affiliated to institution recognized in Notification dated 25- 7-2002 would not be treated as graduate qualification. The petitioner in view of his above noted contentions argued that order passed by the learned appellate forum (respondent No,3) is liable to be set aside as being violative of the provisions of Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 and the one passed by the Returning Officer be maintained by declaring that the respondent No,1 is not qualified to contest elections against the general seats for the Senate scheduled to be held on 24-2-2003.
2. The contentions noted above have been considered in the light of the above quoted provisions of the Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 and the order passed by the respondent No,3/Appellate Authority contended to be set aside. Also the documents annexed with the memo. Of petition as well as the case-law cited by the petitioner has been perused carefully.
3. Admittedly as per provisions of Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or the"
4. Provincial Assembly unless he is at least a graduate possessing a bachelor degree in any discipline or any degree recognized as equivalent by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force. In the instant case Sanad of Madrassa was attached with the nomination papers filed by the respondent No,1 with the Returning Officer claiming that the same is equivalent to a bachelor degree of a University, therefore, the respondent was to satisfy that the same had been recognized as equivalent by the University Grants Commission/Higher Education Commission, Islamabad. Perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority shows that no such material was produced by the respondent No,1 before Appellate Authority nor within the parameters of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above quoted judgment could be produced by the respondent No,1 before the Appellate Authority as regards equivalence of the Sanad is concerned.
5. Apart from such an aspect of the case, admittedly the petitioner is not a contesting candidate independently or on the basis of political party ticket for the elections of the Senate nor he is an elector, therefore, in such view of the matter; he has been asked to satisfy us as to whether he can be treated as an aggrieved person to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority by invoking extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in his capacity as a citizen and as to whether in view of the relief claimed in the Constitutional petition, simpliciter declaration can be granted without specifically claiming relief with regard to the order passed by the Appellate Authority but the petitioner failed to satisfy us on such legal aspect and he simply contended that this Constitutional petition has been filed within the purview of Clause-1(b)(ii) of Article 199 of the Constitution for which the petitioner may not be an aggrieved person and secondly; appropriate consequential reliefs can be granted by this Court irrespective of the fact that relief in specific terms in respect of order passed by the Appellate Authority has not been claimed. It may be noted that we offered to the petitioner that he can be allowed to suitably amend the memo. Of Constitutional petition as the facts and circumstances of the case may admit including the relief clause, to which he showed his unwillingness to amend the Constitutional petition. We are unable to contribute to the views of the petitioner that this Constitutional petition relates to the issuance of writ in the nature of quo warranto within the meaning of Clause-1(b)(ii) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Moreover; the petitioner being not an aggrieved person in view of the above-noted fact cannot question the order passed by the Appellate Authority by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and secondly; since the order contended to be set aside passed by the Appellate Authority has not been specifically claimed nor appropriate reliefs have been sought for in the Constitutional petition, therefore, the same being defective in its form and not maintainable for the foregoing reasons is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.