' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as respondents Nos.l to 4 submitted their nomination papers for the seat of Nazim and NaibNazim respectively for Union Council No,74, Rasoolpur, Tehsil and District Jhang, for upcoming election due on 22-11-2006. The petitioner objected to the nomination papers of respondents Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that respondent No,1 submitted false declaration of assets as he failed to disclose the assets in the name of his wife. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No,1 submitted an application before respondent No,6/Returning Officer praying that he wanted to tile fresh declaration of assets. The respondent No,6/Returning Officer allowed application of respondent No,1 vide order, dated 7-11-2006. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Returning Officer, Jhang/respondent No,5 but the same was dismissed vide order, dated 10- 11-2006. The learned counsel has called in question the above order.
2. The impugned order shows that the wife of the respondent No,1 was living separately for the last 1-1/2 years with her parents due to differences between the spouses. During the separation, the property was purchased by the respondent, No, l's wife, on her own, who is running her school in the name of "Progressive Public Middle School". However, the respondent No,1 knowing the objection, applied for amendment in the declaration Form supported by his affidavit, contents of which were not rebutted. The Returning Officer allowed amendment in the declaration of assets. Thus, presently the declaration of assets shall be treated for all purposes, the one which has been allowed by the Returning Officer during the process of election and before the actual balloting. The above facts also show that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Even otherwise, section 152 relates to qualifications for candidates and elected members. Section 152 reads as under:-- ' A person shall qualify to be elected or to hold an elective office or membership of a Local Government,--
(a) to (h) ...............................................................................
(i) if he does not possess assets which are inconsistent with his declaration of assets,---
3. Respondent No,2 submitted, at the time submission of nomination papers, amended declaration of assets with permission of the Returning Officer, therefore, he possesses assets which are consistent with his 'declaration of assets'.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to another order of the learned Returning Officer wherein appeal was accepted by him and amended declaration of assets was not allowed. In my opinion, there is a difference between both the orders. In the later order, dated 10-11-2006 passed in case titled Shahid Mustafa v. Muhammad Asif Ali Khan, the learned District Returning Officer observed as under:- "Neither respondent No,1 sought the permission in his application nor he was allowed to incorporate the property of his wife, Mst. Hamidan Begum in his amended declaration Form No,XIX. Meaning thereby he intentionally had concealed this factum and without any lawful justification and permission of the learned Returning Officer, he has added the property of his wife at Serial No,5 of the amended declaration Form No,XIX."
5. The difference is obvious, in the impugned order herein, amended declaration of assets was submitted after bringing into the notice of Returning Officer and after obtaining permission, whereas, in the order mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the preceding para. Such permission was neither sought nor granted by the learned Returning Officer.
6. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is misconceived and thus, dismissed accordingly.