' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---We intend to decide I.C.A. No,205 of 2001 and I.C.A. No,211 of 2001 by one consolidated judgment having similar questions of law and fact.
2. Briefly, the facts of appeals are that appellant Sughran Nasim filed nomination papers to contest election of a seat reserved for peasants (female) in Union Council No,20 (Doburji Araian, Sialkot).
Appellant-Muhammad Aslam Rana filed nomination papers to contest election to the seat of Nazim Union Council No,108 Kaphoorpur, District Sialkot. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers of appellants. The private respondents being aggrieved filed W.P. No,4083 of 2001 and W.P. No,3707 of 2001 which were accepted by the learned Single Judge through separate impugned judgments. The learned counsel for appellants submit that learned Single Judge has erred in law to consider the extraneous material which was not before the Returning Officer. The learned Single Judge has erred in law to resolve the disputed question of fact in constitutional petition. In support of their contention they relied upon the following judgments; ' Mian Muhammad Yousaf's case (PLD 2001 Lahore 22), Sarfraz Khan and other's case (2001 SCMR 574), Revenue Employee Cooperative Housing Society registered and 8 others' case (2001 SCMR 155).
3. The learned counsel for appellant (Muhammad Aslam Rana I.C.A. No,205 of 2001), stated that the appellant secured 3517 votes whereas respondent No,1 secured 1863 votes and third candidate obtained 1399 votes. Similarly Sughran Nasim appellant in I.C.A. No,211 of 2001 has secured 1862 votes; Riffat Tahirarespondent No,3 secured 700 votes and Razia Sultana secured 1020 votes. They further submit that both the appellants secured more votes qua the contesting candidates.
' Mr. M.D. Tahir Advocate for respondents in I.C.A. No,205 of 2001 submits that appellant committed fraud with the Court, therefore proceedings may be initiated against appellant under section 476 Cr.P.C.; that appellant concealed material facts by filing nomination papers before the Returning Officer that Laboratory in question is still in ownership of appellant; that he produced copies of bills of telephone regarding the laboratory in question to show that the appellant has been paying telephone charges to the telephone department; that learned Single Judge was justified to accept the writ petition of respondents; that appellant did not fulfil the qualifications in Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for respondents in I.C.A. No,211 of 2001, submits that appellant is not peasant as is evident from the Goshwara submitted by the respondents along with writ petition; that learned Single Judge was justified to accept the writ petition of respondents.
5. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, learned Additional Advocate-General submits that respondents have alternate remedy to file election petition against the appellants.
6. We have considered the contentions ,of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The result of election was declared and both the appellants had secured more votes as compared to all the contesting candidates. This Court has ample powers to take into consideration the subsequent events. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by (1990 CLC 1069) Nasir Jamal's case.
' It is pertinent to mention here that the legislature did not give any right of appeal to respondents qua the acceptance of nomination papers of appellants by the Returning Officer. This fact brings the case in the area that the order passed by the Returning Officer qua the acceptance of nomination papers is final. It is also settled principle of law that High Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in constitutional jurisdiction while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution should (sic) most important point to accept these appeals that because of the mandate given by the people of the area. Both the appellants have won the election by the substantial margin. Thus, this, mandate cannot be ignored altogether in the light of above, it is appropriate, that the matter in dispute between the parties should be resolved through Election Tribunal which are constituted under the law that the said parties, thus, if so advised the respondents can avail remedy by way of election petition, therefore, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgments. There is no order as to costs.