SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order of the learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Gujrat, whereby he allowed respondent No. 3 to contest election by dismissing the appeal against order of the Returning Officer.
2. Briefly, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are contesting bye-election to post of Nazim, UC Machhiwal, Tehsil & District Gujrat. The election is due to be held on 26.12.2005. The petitioner raised objection against the nomination papers of respondent No. 3, at the time of scrutiny. The objection was rejected by the learned Returning Officer vide his order dated 13.12.2005. The appeal was filed before the learned District Returning Officer, respondent No. 1 which was dismissed on 15.12.2005.
Against the above mentioned orders, present writ petition has been filed.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 3 attached declaration of his assets (Annex-B) omitting a house, whereas, in an earlier declaration of assets in the previous election, the house as one of the assets of the respondent No. 3 was shown. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 deliberately suppressed the ownership of the house/asset, therefore, should have been declared disqualified, in view of provisions of section 152(1)(i) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The learned counsel also referred rule 12(4) of the Punjab Local Councils Elections Rules, 2005, which requires that every nomination paper shall be accompanied by a declaration of assets of the candidate in Form-XIX, which shall be open to inspection by every voter of the local area concerned.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that respondent No. 3 is not a matriculate in terms of section 152(1)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. He is in possession of detail marks certificate issued by Sindh Board of Technical Education and provisional and character certificate dated 24.12.1982 issued by O.P.F. Poly Trade Technical School Pipri, Karachi. He stressed that equivalence of the said certificate with matriculation certificate could only be determined by I.B.C.C. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In this context, he relied on PSC (Pak.) 1409.
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that assets were declared by respondent No. 3 and nothing was suppressed. In support, of his contention, he produced a certified copy of Register Haq Daran Zameen of village Machhiwal of year 2001-02.
According to him, the said house is built on this land owned by respondent No. 3. He further submitted that in a village, the houses are of ordinary nature, they are not a valued property, the actual value is of the land. To further beef up his arguments, he submitted that value of 26 kanals agricultural land shown at Sr. No. 1 of annex-B is shown as Rs. 7 lacs. The value of the house in the previous declaration of asset was also shown as Rs. 7 lacs.
According to him, it was an inadvertent mistake on part of respondent No. 3 not to mention house and 26 kanals agricultural land in Annex-B, for which respondent No. 3 cannot be deprived of his constitutional and political right to contest the election.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that respondent No. 3 obtained a Diploma from Sindh Board of Technical Education. In this context, he referred to mark sheet of Annual Examination of 1982, duly attested by Controller of Examination showing details that respondent had obtained in English 43 marks out of 100 and in Pakistan Studies 29 marks out of 50, alongwith other subjects i.e. Mathematics. Physics and Chemistry. According to him, respondent No. 3 obtained education/Diploma in Technical Education (Matric Technical) held in 1982.
According to him, equivalence certificate was competently issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Karachi which was produced before the learned District Returning Officer. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, I.B.C.C. Was constituted in 1972 and power of determining equivalence was granted in 1990, whereas, respondent No. 3 had done Matric Technical much earlier than this date. The learned counsel further submits that the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in his case.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties with due attention and consideration.
8. In Abbas Khan and another Vs. Appellate Authority, 2002 SCM R 398, it was noted a substantial amount of money was not disclosed in the declaration of assets filed alongwith nomination papers. In the present case, the value of the house in the earlier declaration, Annex-J, and value of the land on which that house exist in the present declaration, Annex-B, is shown as Rs. 7 iacs. The only omission is that house is not mentioned on the land or with the land, but as far as value is concerned, the same is disclosed and not suppressed as it is obvious from Annex- J and Annex-B. In both annexures value of residential house or agricultural land, without showing house, (Annex-B) is Rs. 7 lacs. Therefore, I am of the view that 2002 SCM R 398 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Particularly, at this stage, on this ground, the respondent No. 3 cannot be deprived of his right to contest the election. On the question whether value of assets would be more than declared if the house was also included in the assets, requires recording of evidence. Therefore, if the petitioner feels that omission of not declaring house as one of the assets means non disclosure of value of overall properties, he may take up this matter before Election Tribunal by filling an election petition. That right would not be prejudiced by this order.
9. As far.As question of academic qualification is concerned, I am satisfied after going through the record that "Equivalence" was granted to the qualification of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had obtained Diploma from Sindh, Board of Technical Education and equivalence certificate was also issued by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Karachi bearing No. ISE/ISE.IOC/Eq/5072/73-351/73, dated 2.1.1973. It may be pointed out that at that time I.B.C.C. Had no such authority to issue equivalence certificate.
Therefore, for the present election, the respondent No. 3 did not require to obtain such equivalence certificate as he already had it.
10. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sana Ullah and others Vs. DRO, Mianwali, relates to controversy relating to validity of "Sanads" or "Asnad" of Deeni Madaras for contesting local government election and not for technical education (Matric Technical) as it is evident from the contents of para 4 of the said judgment. In the said judgment, it was also noted that the said Deeni Madaras are not being run under any Government Authorities, they are being run in private sector without any statutory sanction except few exceptions. That was also a reason to have an equivalence certificate. In the case of respondent No. 3, he had obtained education from a Government Institution and not a private Institution. Similarly, in para 17 of the judgment, it is mentioned that the Federal Government appointed Inter Board Committee of Chairman (I.B.C.C) in 1990 for determining equivalence of certificates/diplomas up to higher secondary level. Therefore, as noted above, the respondent No. 3 could not have had equivalence certificate from I.B.C.C. As he had obtained diploma or matric technical certificate much earlier. It may also be added that one of the criterion for issuing equivalence certificate for students who obtained their Asnad from Deeni Madaras, as declared in the said judgment is of getting education in other subjects,. i.e. English, Urdu and Pakistan Studies. The respondent No. 3, as the record shows, studied and passed in subjects of English, Urdu, Pakistan Studies, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Technical Drawing, Trade Theory and Trade Practical. Therefore, In my view, the requirements of section 152 (1)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 sufficient fulfilled.
11. In view of foregoing reasons and discussion, this writ petition is dismissed and the impugned orders of Returning Officer and District Returning Officer are not interfered.