' MUHAMMAD AKTHAR SHABBIR, J.---This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No. 2633 of 2005, Writ Petition No.2693 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.2717 of 2005 arising out of the order, dated 29-9-2005 passed by the District Returning Officer/Appellate Authority, Chakwal.
2. The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition No. 2633 of 2005 are to the effect that Abdul Majeed Malik petitioner has submitted his nomination papers to contest the election of the office of Zila Nazim of District Chakwal. He along with his nomination papers filed a duplicate Matriculation certificate issued by the Assistant Controller (Certificates), University of the Punjab, Lahore. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, respondent No.3 made an objection that Abdul Majeed Malik is disqualified to contest the election for the seat of "Zila Nazim" having not the requisite qualification of matriculation. It was also objected that the duplicate certificate was issued by the University Authorities upon the basis of an affidavit and personal knowledge of the Headmaster of Government High School, Chakwal, and it was not issued on the basis of the public record maintained by the University Authorities. It was further objected by the respondent that the petitioner being Senior Vice-President of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) was also disqualified in view of section 152(1)(s) of the. Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, and also failed to file his manifesto to the nomination. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was conducted on 16-9-2005.
The Returning Officer, respondent No.2, dismissed the objection-petition and accepted the nomination papers of the petitioner vide his order, dated 16-9-2005.
3. Respondent No.3/Objector filed an appeal before the District Returning Officer, who after hearing the parties, vide his impugned order, dated 19-9-2005 accepted the appeal of the Objector and rejected the nomination papers filed by the present petitioner Abdul Majeed Malik.
4. Writ Petition No.2717 of 2005 has been filed by Aurangzeb Khan petitioner/ respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.2633 of 2005 to challenge the observations made by the District Returning Officer in his judgment in paragraph-16, wherein it is stated that the other grounds in the memo. Of appeal are not pressed vehemently and he gave no finding on other grounds of objections raised by the writ- petitioner.
5. Umar Saleem Asghar, writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.2693 of 2005 has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the orders, dated 16-9-2005 and 19-9-2005 passed by the Returning Officer and District Returning Officer respectively, whereby the objection of the petitioner that respondent No.3 Sardar Ghulam Abbas, a candidate of "Zila Nazim" has affiliated himself politically with Pakistan Muslim Leaue (Q) and he in view of section 152 subsection (1) of sub-clause (S) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, is also disqualified to contest the election.
6. Writ Petition No.2633 of 2005 came up for hearing before this Court on 21-9-2005, on which date Controller of Examination, University of the Punjab was made as a party/respondent No.4 under the direction of this Court. He was directed to appear in person in Court along with the record of matriculation examination held in 1939 in respect of Abdul Majeed Malik son of Muhammad Abbas Ali, Roll No.12912 and the case was adjourned to 23-9-2005. On 23-9-2005. Jamil Tariq Deputy Controller and Rana Fazal Assistant Controller entered appearance on behalf of "University" of the Punjab and have stated that they had issued duplicate "matriculation" certificate to the petitioner on the verification made by the Headmaster of Government High School, Chakwal. He has also placed on record a Photostat cop of the said verification as Mark-A. After hearing the arguments, the case was adjourned to 24-9-2005 for announcement of orders. On 23-9-2005, while I was going to dictate the judgment, I found it appropriate to summon the Headmaster and Record- Keepers of Government High School, Chakwal, along with the records of the case of the petitioner, as the District Returning Officer has mentioned in his order in paragraph-13 that a copy of admission regarding middle part annexed with the appeal was produced before him, according to which the petitioner was admitted in the school for the first time on 23-4-1935 at Serial No.1334 of the Register in 5th class. Thus, the Court verbally directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to bound down the Headmaster and the Record-Keepers to appear before this Court in Chamber. In compliance of the order, Ibrar Hussain Shah, Senior Headmaster, Government High School No.1, Chakwal, Rab Nawaz and Arshad Saeed Record-keepers have entered appearance on 24-9-2005 along with admission and withdrawal Register of the said School. The Headmaster has stated that that prior to 1940, record of high classes is not available. On query, he has stated that had verified the contents of the application of the petitioner on the direction of Saleem Anwar D.E.O.
(Colleges), who told him that he had checked from the record of the University, the name of the petitioner had been entered therein. Therefore, being his senior Officer, he believed him and on his information, verified the application of the petitioner. The Photostat copies of the relevant pages of admission and withdrawal register were placed on record as Mark-A/1. The Headmaster has produced a written statement on his behalf as well as the statements of the record-keepers, who have stated that the records of the high classes of the school prior to 29-1-1940 except the Register of admission and withdrawal was not available. The said copies of the statements have also been placed on record as Mark-B & C. In view of the above facts, I felt it in the interest of justice to rehear the case and it was listed for hearing for today.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Officers of the University of the Punjab have stated before this Court that they have issued duplicate "matriculation" certificate to the petitioner and it was "sufficient" proof of the qualification of the petitioner to the effect that he is qualified/eligible to contest the election for the said seat of "Zila Nazim", Chakwal. Further contended that as per Rule 14 sub-rule (3) of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 2005, the Returning Officer was competent only to conduct summary inquiry. The relevant provisions of law have not empowered the Returning Officer or for that matter the District Returning Officer to go deep in order to inquire the facts of the case. Further contended that the name of the petitioner appeared' in the `"gazette" of result of matriculation examination held in 1939 against Roll No.12912 and on the basis of the said result, the "University" Authorities were competent to issue duplicate certificate of "matriculation" certificate in favour of the petitioner, the validity of which could not be questioned before the Returning Officer/District Returning Officer. He has also referred the meanings of the "summary inquiry" made in Black's Law Dictionary and New Oxford Dictionary.
Further contended that the detailed inquiry with regard to the factual controversy is also not the concept of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Further contended that Sardar Ghulam Abbas, respondent No.3, rival candidate of the petitioner, is also disqualified to contest the election for the aforesaid seat of "Zila Nazim".
8. Learned counsel for Umar Saleem Asghar, writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.2693 of 2005 has also argued that respondent No.3 Sardar Ghulam Abbas is also disqualified to contest the election. He based his arguments on some Press clippings annexed with this petition. He further contended that the objection of the petitioner was not entertained by the Returning Officer on the ground that the Objection-Petition has not been filed on 15-9-2005. The Returning Officer has not rejected the objection of the petitioner and the same order was maintained by the District Returning Officer.
Further contended that there was no date fixed for filing the objections against the nomination papers of the contesting candidates.
9.Obdul Majeed Malik petitioner himself Aintered appearance before this Court and argued that the had qualified his vernacular examination of 8th standard from Middle School Hasola in 1935 in Persian language and passed 10th standard examination in Arabic language from Government High School in 1939. In this respect, an extract from his service record has been produced, a copy of which has been placed on record, as Mark-E. He also produced an affidavit of one Qazi Maqsood Ahmad in Court today, which is also placed on record as Mark-F. He further submits that after qualifying his vernacular examination of 8th standard in 1935, he appeared in matriculation examination in 1939.
10. On the other hand, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Ch. Aurangzeb Khan, the Objector and writ-petitioner in Writ Petition No.2717 of 2005 contending that the alleged certificate of "matriculation" issued by the Assistant Controller (Certificates), University of the Punjab is not a legal document and it is based on the information/opinion of the present Headmaster of Government High School whereas it is not based on the school record and that the relevant record is also not available in the school. Further contended that neither it is a secondary evidence nor admissible in evidence and it is not the proof of the qualification of Abdul Majeed Malik petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner is a Vice-President/Office holder of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and he based his argument on a pamphlet along with his photograph, which shows that the petitioner has been declared a joint candidate of Pakistan Muslim League and United Front. This pamphlet is available at page-26 of Writ Petition No.2717 of 2005, which is sufficient proof to disqualify the petitioner Abdul Majeed Malik to contest the election of Zila Nazim.
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Advocate- General has also assisted the Court. The questions that boil down for determination in this case are that:--
(i) Whether the petitioner has passed his matriculation examination by appearing in the said examination in the year 1939?
(ii) Whether the alleged matriculation certificate on the basis of which the petitioner claims himself to be qualified to contest the election is a duplicate certified copy of the original public record?
(iii) Whether the candidate namely Abdul Majeed who appeared as a candidate against Roll No.12912 in the year, 1939 for matriculation examination is the petitioner/Abdul Majeed Malik or some other person?
12. The University of the Punjab is a statutory corporate body constituted under the Punjab University Act and its functionaries are public Officers. The public documents are admissible in evidence and certified copies of those documents are also admissible in evidence if are issued by a public officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. For further benefit, the relevant provisions of Article 87 are as under:-- "Article-87.M Certified copies of the public document.---Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies."
13. Article 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order contemplates that such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. If the copy is not certified as required by Article 87, it will be inadmissible in evidence. In this context, reference can be made to the case of Khadim Ali. v.
Jagannath and others (AIR 1941 Oudh 77). The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under:- "The document purports to be a copy given by a public officer having custody of a public document but section 76, Evidence Act, requires that such a copy should bear a certificate written at a the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document."
14. In another case Khizrat Muhammad and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others (PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 492), the learned Division Bench has also observed that a copy certified in terms of section 76 only, admissible. Copy must contain note that it is true and correct copy of the original.
Mere signatures of "Nagai Kuninda" and "Tasdiq Kuninda" is not enough. It was further observed that certified copy of a public record exhibited at the trial without 'objection and the copy found defective subsequently, has not complying with the provisions of section 76 of the Evidence Act and the case was remanded for fresh evidence. In another case Mst. Rashida Begum, v.
Muhammad Ameen and 4 others (2001 MLD 725), it has been held that the document which was inadmissible in evidence, even if exhibited without any objection, could not be legally read in evidence. In this context, reference can also be made to the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Imam Din and 4 others v. Bashir Ahmad and 10 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418). For further benefit and ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "This is settled law that in absence of original document, its certified copy if not admissible evidence and "notwithstanding" the presumption of correctness being attached with certified copy of a document pertaining to the official record, if the validity or the existence of the document is disputed and original is not produced, its certified copy would not be admissible in evidence without proving the non-availability of the original."
15. From the above-referred law, it is evident that a certified copy of the public document can be issued only by an officer having the custody of the public document but where a copy of public document does not bear a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is true copy of such document and is not supported by the evidence of the person who prepared it, the copy is inadmissible in evidence.
16. In the instant case, the issuing Authority has only possessed register of the result gazette where candidate's name Abdul Majeed against Roll No.12912 is appearing and no other record was maintained or kept by the Controller of Examination who had issued duplicate certificate of "matriculation" examination to Abdul Majeed Malik petitioner. The "University" officers present in Court when confronted has categorically stated that they had issued certificate to Abdul Majeed Malik, present petitioner merely on the information/verification made by the Headmaster of the Government High School, Chakwal, 'meaning' thereby that except this result gazette, copy of which is available on the register of the University, no other document is available or kept under the control of the said Officers.
As to the verification on the basis of which, the "University" Authorities issued the said certificate, suffice it to observe that the Headmaster has not verified the application of the petitioner for issuance of a duplicate matriculation certificate on the basis of the record of Government High School, Chakwal. He made this verification on his _ own information. In column {{URDU TEXT}}
17. He has crossed the words "Government High School". The relevant column of Mark-A is reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} In column {{URDU TEXT}} it is stated as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
18. {{URDU TEXT}}
19. The Headmaster of Government High School, who made the aforesaid verification, present in Court has stated that he made the said verification of the Form in respect of the petitioner on the asking of Saleem Anwar D.E.O. (Colleges), who assured him that he checked the particulars of the candidate/petitioner from the "University" of the Punjab, and the same are correct. He has also produced his written statement, signed and sealed by him, which is mark-B. He has not denied the said statement today in Court.
It will not be out of place to mention here that on the backside of Application Form Mark-G contained the instructions B-7 for supply of the Sanad/certificate and the same has restrained for applying the detail marks certificate/Sanad/certificate, which is reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It would mean that the Sanad/certificate prior to the year 1942 could be issued within two months after the receipt of the application provided the record is available with the University.
20. In the instant case, as observed in the preceding paragraph, no record was available with the University Authorities, therefore, the Sanad/certificate could not be issued to the petitioner.
' Another important aspect of the case is that in the result gazette, the name of the candidate against the said Roll number is Abdul Majied without his parentage. Anybody namely Abdul Majied can claim that he was that candidate, who appeared in the examination held in the year, 1939.
There is no evidence or material on record with the Government High School, Chakwal, or the University of the Punjab to connect the petitioner with that candidate namely Abdul Majied. The mere, verification of the Headmaster and that too on the information supplied by his senior is not 'sufficient' to connect the present petitioner with that candidate whose name is appearing in the result notification. The Headmaster has produced the admission and withdrawal Register Mark-A/1 {{URDU TEXT}} for the year, 1935 and at Serial No.1334, dated 23-4-1935 the name of the present petitioner Abdul Majeed son of Abbas Ali as well as date of birth 7-11-1919 is appearing in the said Register, which shows that the petitioner had been admitted in Government High Sdhool in 5th class on the said date. This is the only record available with the said school. As per this register, he was admitted in 5th class on 23-4-1935, after one year he would have passed the 5th class in the year, 1936, 6th class in the year, 1937, 7th class in the year, 1938, 8th class in the year, 1939, 9th class in the year, 1940 and 10th class in the year, 1941. As a matter of fact, as per aforesaid record, he would have completed his 10th class or matriculation after five years i.e. In the year, 1941 while he has shown himself to have passed his matriculation examination in the year, 1939. The petitioner's stand that he has qualified his matriculation examination in the year, 1939 is not in consonance with the school record. In this state of affairs, there is no reason or justification to discard the aforesaid record maintained by the Government High School, Chakwal. The alleged date of qualifying the matriculation examination did not tally with his date of admission in 5th class of the school. When this factual position was confronted with the learned counsel for the petitioner, he objected that this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction would not go into the detailed inquiry and neither Returning Officer/District Returning Officer were obliged to indulge into deeper appreciation or inquiry with regard to the factual position. In this context, guidance can be sought from the case reported as Sarfraz Khan and another, v. Returning Officer for Elections of Union Council No.122-139, District Sargodha and another (2001 MLD 788), wherein in a constitutional petition, it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the Returning Officer had apart from relying upon the records of the said Board, observed that he had questioned the petitioner No.1 and had expressed his satisfaction that he was not matriculate. Under rule 18(3) of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 2000, the Returning Officer has the requisite jurisdiction, "either suo motu" or upon any objection, to reject a nomination paper, if he is satisfied that, inter alia, the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a member. For this purpose, he has to hold only a summary inquiry as he may think fit. In view of the aforesaid provisions of said Rule, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination papers on the said ground or that the matter should have been left to be decided after the election, does not hold much water. There is nothing in the said rule which, in any manner, limits or circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Returning Officer in the manner sought to be asserted by the learned counsel.
The nature of the inquiry and the satisfaction as to the existence of the conditions mentioned in rule 18(3) of the said rules, have been left to the Returning Officer and in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it would not be possible to interfere with the said order on the grounds stated in the writ petition.
20. In the instant case, the certificate showing the qualification of the petitioner annexed with the nomination papers was disputed by the Objector/respondent No.3 by producing a copy of the school register which was discussed by the District Returning Officer in paragraph-13 of his judgment. Since this record was already discussed and produced before the District Returning Officer, therefore, this Court for the benefit of the petitioner and to satisfy with regard to his educational qualification had summoned the record and this Court is competent to examine the record in order to determine the educational qualification of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the entry of the school Register wherein the date of admission of the petitioner in 5th class is entered as 23-4-1935 and if that it so and unrebutted, how the petitioner could appear in the year, 199 in matriculation examination.
21. Before this Court, the petitioner himself has taken a different stand stating that he has qualified his 8th standard from Middle School Hasola in 1935 and 10th Standard from the Government High School, Chakwal, in 1939. In this regard, a certificate issued by Coro G.H.Q., Rawalpindi, has been placed on record by the petitioner as Mark-H which reflects as under:-- {{TABLE}}
(12) Language Examination or test passed Persian 8th Standard Arabic 10th Standrad Where On what date Authority Middle School Hasola 1935 Government High 1939 School, Chakwal {{TABLE}} ' The aforesaid certificate does not disclose that the petitioner has passed his matriculation examination in the year, 1939. This certificate and the new stand taken by the petitioner himself are contrary to the school record. An affidavit by some Qazi Maqsood Ahmad son of Qazi Ghulam Ahmad has been placed on record, which is mark-I stating therein that he along with Abdul Majeed Malik has passed the matriculation examination in the year, 1939 from the University of the Punjab. Both these documents are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.
22. By adverting to another aspect of the case, the date of birth of the petitioner, which he claimed and entered in the Register of admission of the school as 17-11-1919 and, after attaining the age of five years, if the petitioner was admitted in the first class in the school, he would have Joined the educational Institution approximately in the year, 1924-25. In that eventuality he would have completed his matriculation within ten years and that would be the year 1935. This too is not corresponding with the alleged year of passing of the "matriculation" examination by the petitioner.
The petitioner has applied to the University for issuance of a duplicate copy of his matriculation certificate through a printed pro forma which contained some instructions of the University with regard to the issuance of duplicate certificate and as per Instruction B-7, which has already been produced above (copy of the blank pro forma containing the instructions for taking judicial notice is placed on record as Mark-G). The detailed marks/Sanad prior to the year, 1942 as per decision of the (Syndicate, dated 19-1-1991), that on receipt of the application along with the fee, the certificate/Sanad shall be issued within two months provided the record is available with the University.
As discussed above, there was no record available with the University or with the Headmaster Government High School, therefore, duplicate copy of the certificate could not be issued to the petitioner and if issued, it cannot be termed as a "genuine" certificate. The University Authorities should take note of it.
23. In view of the above discussion, it is established on record that the alleged certificate produced by the petitioner before the Returning Officer in support of his qualification is not a true certified copy of the record maintained by the school as well as by the University of the Punjab and such a copy of the certificate is not a proof of the qualification of the petitioner.
24. The matriculation certificate claimed by the petitioner, as per school record/University record and his own record, which he has placed on the file of this Court, in any manner, is not a matriculation certificate. It was only an afterthought effort of the petitioner, as is evident from the entry of the date on the said certificate, which is 14-8-2005 (Sunday) which was also a gazetted holiday. It means that it was prepared on a day which was declared a gazetted holiday by the Government of Pakistan. On the basis of such-like document/certificate the petitioner cannot be declared qualified to contest the election. The District Returning Officer after examining the entire record and satisfying himself has rightly rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner and thus he has committed no illegality while passing the impugned order.
25. As to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court could not hold an inquiry, the answer would be that where there was an abuse of powers/authority, the High Court is under constitutional duty to ensure that the people were dealt with in accordance with law and High Court could hold an inquiry in the circumstances. Reference can be made to the case of Ijaz Ahmad and others v. The State and others (PLD 2001 Lahore 94). In this case, the Court has not held a special inquiry and only summoned and examined that record on which the petitioner and respondent No.3/Objector have based their case, which is also summary in nature. As observed earlier in the preceding paragraphs, this record was examined only for the convenience of the petitioner and in order to determine his right to contest the election and not for any other purpose.
20. In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to hold that the neither the said "matriculation" certificate was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act nor the University Authorities were competent to issue the same to the present petitioner without the record of the Government High School, Chakwal, and the University itself and the petitioner has not passed his matriculation examination by appearing in the said examination, which was held in the year, 1939. This certificate was manoeuvred and ingenuine and inadmissible document and the petitioner is not that candidate who appeared in 1939 F from the Government High School, Chakwal.
27. Aurangzeb Khan, writ-petitioner has claimed disqualification of the contesting candidate Abdul Majeed Malik on the ground that he has been directly using the platform of "Pakistan Muslim League" for the seat of District/Zila Nazim, Chakwal, and in his pamphlet he has claimed that he is a joined candidate of PML and United Front while on the other hand, Umar Saleem Asghar writ- petitioner has claimed disqualification of Sardar Ghulam Abbas Khan, respondent No.3, on the same ground. Both the writ-petitioners have placed on record the pamphlet and press-clippings.
These documents are not the direct or primary evidence and on the basis of pamphlet and the news in the newspaper and press clipping, it cannot be said that these were published intentionally by the candidates themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioner Abdul Majeed Malik has submitted that his client has resigned from the office of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) before filing his nomination papers. He produced his resignation, dated 9-9-2005 which was received by the Secretary on 25-9-2005. It means that by giving resignation of the office of a political party, he has disassociated himself from the said party.
28. As to the version of Umar Saleem Asghar, writ-petitioner that Sardar Ghulam. Abbas Khan, the other candidate of Zila Council, is also using party platform. He has also claimed his disqualification on the basis of the statement made by the Chief Minister of the Punjab. It is not the sufficient and direct proof that he is a candidate of PML(Q). Respondent No.3 has not used the flag of the party or other sources of the parties.
29. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, all the three writ petitions being devoid of any force are dismissed.