' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- In order to contest elections to the seats of Nazim/Naib Nazim UC No.78, Tehsil and District Multan, Respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed nomination papers. Respondent No.3 relied upon a Sanad of Shahadat-us-Sanvia Tul-Amia to demonstrate that he possesses requisite academic qualification to contest the election to the said seats. The papers were objected to but the Returning Officer held that the Sanad is equivalent to matriculation and rejected the objection on 24-7-2005. Against this order the petitioner, who himself is a candidate for the seat of Nazim filed appeal. This appeal was dismissed by the learned Distrid Returning Officer, Multan, on 27-7-2005. The Writ Petition was filed in this Court on 30-7-2005.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said Sanad is a bogus document as stated in letter (Annex-D). He further relies upon the Judgment dated 16-8-2005 of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan inter alia in C.P. No.1569-I of 2005 to urge that even if the Sanad is deemed to be genuine, the same is not equivalent to Matric.
3. I may note here that this case was taken up by me along with several other similar cases on 27- 9-2005 when Mrs. Naseem Akhtar Chaudhry, Advocate, objected that there is a factual controversy involved as the Sanad has been challenged only on the ground that it is bogus and not that it is not equivalent to Matric. After giving some thought to the said contention I had opined that it will not be possible to consider the matter by ignoring the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The case was however adjourned for today to enable the learned counsel to prepare her case. Today Mr. Muhammad Ali Gillani, Advocate, has put in appearance for respondent No.3. Now he argues that this Court would not be having jurisdiction to take note of the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, as there is no reference to the same in the writ petition. According to him it will be tantamount to exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by this Court which it does not have in view of the law laid in the case of Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2001 SCM R 1822) as also a Full Bench judgment of the learned Karachi High Court in the case of Saiyyid Abul A'la Maudoodi and others v. The Government of West Pakistan, through Secretary to Government of West Pakistan Home Department, Lahore (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 478). The learned counsel for the petitioner rejoins to urge that this is a pure legal question and can be raised at any time and this Court can take cognizance of the same.
4. Needless to state that admitted position is that the said respondent No.3 has not passed requisite additional subjects as mentioned in the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with a similar Sanad and as such the admitted position is that the Sanad is not equivalent to matriculation.
5. Now this leaves the said objection of Mr. Muhammad Ali Gillani, Advocate. So far as the said case of Muhammad Ali is concerned, the facts relevant to the observations made by their Lordships in para.30 of the said report (at page 1846) are available in para.18 of the said judgment. Feeling aggrieved of confirmation of land, stated to be allotted to them, the legal heirs of one Sardar Muhammad filed Writ Petition No.72-R of 1995 in this Court against Qadir Bakhsh, to whom the land had been confirmed. It was stated by the said appellants before their lordships that according to the order announced in open Court, on 11-10-1995, the Writ Petition was allowed but the case was again fixed for hearing and on 29-2-1996 an order was passed, wherein the names of several persons (Mst. Asmat-unNisa and others, L.Rs. Of Abdul Rashid) were also inserted and the same agricultural land was given to them depriving the appellants of 33 Kanals, 16 Marlas out of their temporary allotment. It was in the said context that it was observed by their lordships in para.30 of the judgment as follows:-- "30. Now it would be considered whether the learned Judge in Chamber of High Court had lawfully granted relief to respondents Ismatun Nisa and others while disposing of appeal filed by Sardar Shahid knowing well that they are not party in the writ petitions filed by them. In this behalf without dilating in detail on this proposition it is sufficient to observe that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, High Court does not enjoy suo motu jurisdiction to grant relief to a party.. "
' Similarly in the said case of Saiyyid Abul A 'la Maudoodi and others Mr. Justice Inam Ullah (as his lordship then was) while agreeing with the opinion of the Full Bench expressed by the Honourable Chief Justice observed (at page 517 of the report) that there is no prayer in the writ petition that the provincial government be called upon to give a show-cause notice before passing of the impugned order under section 16 of the Act XIV of 1908 and since no such relief has been claimed, the same cannot be granted on the basis of the argument of the learned counsel recorded therein.
6. Now in the present case the precise relief prayed for is that the impugned orders accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.3 be set aside and his nomination papers be rejected. Now apart from the fact that under the Constitution of the country law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is binding on all the subordinate Courts, the question being purely of law can be raised at any time by a party and the Court is bound to consider the same. Needless to mention here the observations made repeatedly by the Honourable apex Court that a Judge is required and bound to know the law and to apply the same to the given set of circumstances before him. I have, therefore, no manner of doubt in my mind that it is not only within the domain of this Court but rather it is its duty to apply the law to the proved or admitted state of affairs. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 accepting the nomination papers of respondents Nos.2 and 3 and of the District Returning Officer dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are set aside being without lawful authority. A copy of this order to be immediately remitted to the office of the learned Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan as also the District Returning Officer, Multan.