1. ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.- Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner had stepped out of the. Court of the learned Returning Officer when the scrutiny of nomination papers of the respondent No. 1 was undertaken: On his return his objection about the academic Sanad of the respondent No. 1 was turned down because scrutiny had been completed. This happened on 23.7.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his appeal before the learned District Returning Officer or 6.8.2005 which was rejected for being time-barred. .The petitioner has come to this Court on 10.8.2005. There is clearly inaction, acquiescence and laches on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his grievance. In the meantime a right has accrued to the respondent No. 1(and his running mate respondent No. 2) on account of completion of process of scrutiny before the statutory forums. This Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction examines the propriety of those proceedings and finds nothing wrong in the same. The petitioner has corresponding alternate remedies under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case concerning challenge to the qualification of the respondent No. 1, this petition is held to be not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed. 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.