ORDER IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Petitioner submitted nomination papers for the office of Tehsil Nazim, Jhang. His nomination papers were accepted. On appeal the appellate authority rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved of that order, under consideration petition was submitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 6, who has appeared of his own, have been heard at length in the matter and record annexed to petition has also been gone through.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner had disclosed, practically, the entire assets and was unable to disclose ownership of land measuring about 16 marlas only and this was not substantial omission and nomination papers of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner had disclosed that he was owner of about 12 marlas of land and had not disclosed ownership of 16 marlas of land and, as such, had suppressed assets, which consisted of land and omission on the part of petitioner to declare his entire assets, was quite grave, as 65% of land owned by petitioner, was not declared by him in the declaration of assets submitted by him.
5. The petitioner, at the time of scrutiny, sought to amend the declaration submitted by him in Form-XIX, which was however, not allowed It is clear that petitioner was aware of the fact that he owned land, other than one he had disclosed in his declaration. The petitioner was in a position to submit a-declaration with regard to 12 marlas of land. He could have made a declaration with regard to 16 marlas of other land, which he also ownd. There was substantial and conscious suppression of facts by the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate authority is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity and, as such, cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Dismissed.