Salim Khan, J.--We heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Qayum Sarwar, Advocate, for the petitioners, and Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, learned Addl. A.G. for the official respondents, on notice by the Court. We also perused the available record.
2. The nomination papers of Malik Aurangzeb and Aurangzeb candidates for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council, Pawa, District Abbottabad, were rejected on the ground that the certificate of the candidate for the seat of Naib Nazim was not found correct. The detailed order of the learned Returning Officer is dated 31.07.2005. On appeal, the learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, in the light of statement of Aurangzeb, Petitioner No, 1, recorded on 18.5.2002 in the previous election petition, came to the conclusion that Petition No, 1 stated that he had passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1975. The learned Returning Officer also referred to the conduct of Petitioner No, 1 and mentioned that "The candidate further admitted in his statement before Election Tribunal that the Board authorities had cancelled his certificate for the year, 1975 under Roll No, 3560. These admissions by the candidate prima facie suggest that he has committed fraud and forgery by producing false and factitious certificates during previous elections.
Similarly the certificate of the year 1975 which was cancelled by the Board authorities as forged and factitious one has been challenged by him before the Civil Court of Abbottabad and prayed for declaration to the effect that the same is correct."
3. As a result of the above, the learned District Returning Officer came to the conclusion that either Petitioner No, 1 had made false statement between (before) the two competent Forums (in the Civil suit and in the election petition), or he was telling lie for the purposes of this election before the learned Returning Officer as well as before the learned District Returning Officer. He, therefore, held that telling lie by Petitioner No, 1 was a major sin, and, therefore, he was not entitled to contest election. He is supported by the provisions of Section 152(1)(d) of the N.W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
4. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, we dismiss it.