' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.14338, 14339 and 14340 of 2005.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are to the effect that the petitioners as well as respondents Nos.3 to 8 had filed nomination papers to contest the election for Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No,25 Sangla Hill District Nankana Sahib. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 Muhammad Anees Bhatti and Mehboob Ahmad filed a joint nomination paper for election of Nazim and Naib Nazim of the Union Council concerned whereas respondent .No,5 Muhammad Azam filed two nomination papers one with Ali Imran, respondent No,3 as Naib Nazim and the other with Muhammad Anees Bhatti respondent No,8 as Naib Nazim. The objection was raised by the present petitioners against nomination papers of respondents Nos.3 to 5 which was rejected by the Returning Officer and nomination papers of all the candidates and the petitioners as well as respondent No,3 have been accepted. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed three different appeals before the Appellate Authority/District Returning Officer, who vide a consolidated order dated 3-8-2005 dismissed the same and upheld the order of the Returning Officer accepting the nomination papers of respondents Nos.3 to 8. The order passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been assailed by the petitioners through the instant three writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No,5 has filed two nomination papers with two different ,panels; one with Ali Imran respondent No,6 as Naib Nazim and the other with Muhammad Anees Bhatti as Naib Nazim. Further contended that a person can file more than one nomination paper but it would not mean to permit a candidate of Nazim to file nomination paper having different candidates as Naib Nazim. In this context he placed his reliance on a judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,14053 of 2005 dated 2-8-2005 and a case titled as Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi and another v. Appellate Authority/District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and 9 others (2003 CLC 64).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,5 vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that there is no bar for a candidate of Nazim to file more than one nomination papers with different candidate of Naib Nazim provided he withdraws all the other nomination papers except one within the prescribed time of withdrawal of nomination paper. He further contended that respondents Nos.3 and 5 Muhammad Anees Bhatti and Malik Muhammad Azam have filed application before the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny for the withdrawal of the nomination paper which was accepted on the last date of withdrawal dated 4-8-2005. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Muhammad Jamil Akhtar v. District Judge, Rawalpindi and 4 others (2003 SCM R 400).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Rule 12 of the Punjab Local Council Elections Rules, 2005 provided the powers to the Returning Officer for inviting nomination paper specifying the time before which and the place at which nomination paper shall be received by him add sub-rule (3) of rule 12 contemplated as under:- "(3) Every nomination of a candidate for becoming--
(i) A member in a union council shall be made by a separate nomination paper in Form-III(A), which shall be signed by both the proposer and the seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made, be signed by the candidate.
(ii) A Nazim and a Naib Nazim of a union council, as joint candidates, shall be made by a separate nomination paper in Form-III(B) and shall be signed by both the proposer and seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made, be signed by both the candidates contesting election as joint candidates.
(iii) A Nazim of a Zila Council, or a Tehsil or Town Council, as a candidate, shall be made by a nomination paper in Form-IIIC) signed by both the proposer and seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made and signed by the contesting candidate.
(iv) Member of a Zila, Tehsil or Town Council against seats reserved for women, peasants and workers and, minority communities shall be made in a separate nomination paper in Form-III(D), signed by both the proposer and seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made, be signed by.The candidate.
' Sub-rule (6) of rule 12 ibid has further provided that a person may be nominated in the same Union by more than one nomination paper. In the instant case, Muhammad Azam the candidate of Naib Nazim has filed two nomination papers with different panels signed by the different proposers and seconders.
7. Rule 16. Withdrawal and retirement.---(1) Any validly nominated candidate may, be notice in writing signed by him and delivered to the Returning Officer on or before the withdrawal day, either by the candidate in person or by an agent authorized in this behalf in writing by such candidate, withdraw his candidature: ' Provided that in case of joint candidates for the office of Nazim and Naib Nazim, both shall sign the applications for withdrawal.
(2) On receiving a notice of withdrawal under sub-rule (1), the Returning Officer shall, if he is satisfied that the signature on the notice is that of the candidate, cause a copy of the notice to be affixed at some conspicuous place in his office.
(3) The Returning Officer shall, on the day next following the withdrawal day, prepared in Form-VIII a list of contesting candidates and exhibit the same at some conspicuous place in his office.
In the instant case, the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the petitioner was conducted on 30-7- 2005 and on the said date, Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Anees Bhatti filed an application for Withdrawal of their joint nomination papers and Muhammad Annes Bhatti and his Naib Nazim Mehboob Ahmad had also filed an application for withdrawal of their nomination papers. The Returning Officer recorded the statements of Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Anees Bhatti and allowed the application for withdrawal of their nomination papers and exhibit the Form-VIII, list of contesting candidates for the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim after the date of withdrawal of the nomination papers. The, factum of the filing of the application of withdrawal of the nomination papers by Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Anees Bhatti is A also admitted by the District Returning Officer/Appellate Authority who mentioned in his order that the application for withdrawal of the nomination papers on behalf of Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Anees Bhatti respondent is found available on the record. After the withdrawal date, only one nomination paper of respondent No,5 Muhammad Azam and Ali Imran Chaudhry respondent No,6 Nazim and Naib Nazim respectively is available.
8. The validly nominated candidate 'means' a candidate whose the nomination paper has been accepted under the rules. The withdrawal of nomination papers can be made on any date as mentioned under sub-rules 1, 2 and 3 of the rules ibid, withdrawal day 'means' a day fixed on or before which candidature would be withdrawn and as per sub-rule (1) of C rule 16 of the said rules, the application signed by both the candidates of Nazim and Naib Nazim can be filed on or before the withdrawal day and in the instant case, much before the last date of withdrawal, the application of withdrawal has been filed by the respondents. The D controversy involved in this case has already been exhaustively dealt with in Muhammad Jamil Akhtar's case (supra), the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-- "The examination of relevant rules would show that there is neither any restriction for a candidate to file more than one nomination papers in the same electoral ward in the different panels nor he is debarred to withdraw the nomination papers before the date of scrutiny and thus, it would be entirely choice of the candidate to withdraw his nomination papers or not from any panel at any time before the scrutiny if he has filed more than one nomination papers and if no such withdrawal is made before the scrutiny, his candidature if he has filed more than one nomination papers and if no such withdrawal is made before the scrutiny, his candidature shall be determined on the basis of nomination papers first received by the Returning Officer and all remaining nomination papers shall be void. The nomination papers which are withdrawn before the scrutiny would be deemed to have been not filed and therefore cannot be considered for declaring a person either to be a validly nominated candidate in the election or for rejection of his candidature. In this case, Ansar appellant filed three sets of nomination papers in three different panels of Badar Munir and Tahir Mehmood before the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, therefore, the same could not be legally deemed to be pending for scrutiny and consequently the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of election would be determinable on the basis of nomination papers available with the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny."
9. In the instant case, on the date of scrutiny, the respondents have filed application for withdrawal of their nomination papers, the Returning Officer has passed the order on the last date of withdrawal and after the withdrawal of the one nomination paper, only one get of nomination paper of respondents Nos.5 and 6 remained in the field. The bar for the candidate of seat of Nazim is that he cannot contest election with two different penals of Naib Nazims, because under the rules if there are more than two candidates other than number of seats in respect of any ward, the Returning Officer shall have to allocate one of symbols specified in schedule to each contesting candidate. If the candidate of Nazim did not withdraw all his nomination papers except one than all his nomination papers after the date of withdrawal would be mutually destructive, 'meaning' thereby that it would defeat the very purpose of rule 12 of the Rules and oust the candidate from the election process. The symbols to the candidates, whether joint candidate or singly shall be allocated after the expiry of withdrawal dates, when the final list of the contesting candidates is published by the Returning Officer.
10. As to the case of Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi and another v. Appellate Authority/District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and 9 others (2003 CLC 64), it would be sufficient to observe that the facts of this case are distinguishable and are not applicable to the case in hand. In the case, Sahibzada Farooq Anwar Abbasi petitioner filed two nomination papers with two different panels along with Malik Muhammad Iqbal Channar and Asghar Ali Raazi as Naib Nazims, both the panels declined to withdraw their nomination papers, therefore, both the nomination papers were mutually destructive, the same, were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer but in case in hand before the date of withdrawal as provided in rule 16 of the Rule ibid, one joint nomination paper filed by Muhammmad Azam, Muhammad Anees Bhatti and other nomination papers filed by Muhammad Anees Bhatti and Mehboob Ahmad had been withdrawn. In this regard notice under rule 16(1) was submitted before the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny and requirement of law was performed in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
11. For the foregoing reasons and following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Muhammad Jamil Akhtar's case (supra), all the three writ petitions are dismissed.