' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---These two connected petitions have been directed against a common judgment, dated 14-12-2007 passed by Balochistan High Court, Quetta. Whereby the Election Appeals bearing Nos.82 and 83 of 2007 filed against the order of Returning Officer by virtue of which the nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected and he was declared disqualified to contest the election.
2. The facts in small compass giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioner being permanent resident and registered voter of Tehsil Buleda District Kech, filed two nomination papers to contest the election from B.P.-49 Kech (II) in the General Election, 2008, Zahoor Ahmed, respondent herein also filed nomination papers from the same constituency and as a result of the scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer vide order, dated 3-12-2007 accepted the nomination papers of the petitioner and also of the private respondent whereupon the .Private respondent filed two separate Election Appeals before the learned Election Tribunal consisting of two learned Judges of the Balochistan High Court seeking rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioner mainly on the ground that he having been convicted under the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999, was disqualified to contest the election and hold the public office. The petitioner avoided to appear before the Election Tribunal and consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal and allowed the same vide judgment, dated 14-12-2007 giving the verdict that petitioner having entered into plea bargain under section 25 of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999, in a case registered against him under the ibid Ordinance, has incurred a disqualification by virtue of section 15 of the said Ordinance to hold any public office.
3. The present petitions filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Election Tribunal consisting of the two learned Judges of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, are not as such competent but in view of the fact that out of total five Judges of the High Court, two learned Judges were performing the duty of election Tribunal and one learned Judge has gone to perform Hajj whereas one learned Judge is Member of the Election Commission of Pakistan and in view thereof, the petitioner could not avail the remedy of constitutional petition before the learned single Judge of the High Court against the judgment of Election Tribunal consisting of two learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, in these circumstances and in absence of any other remedy provided under the law, we notwithstanding the nature of dispute in these petitions dispose of the same as direct petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Election Tribunal without service of the petitioner and providing him right of hearing proceeded to decide the election appeals behind his back and condemned him unheard. The learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the disqualification would not require any further inquiry but no order adverse to the interest of petitioner could be passed in his absence and consequently, the impugned judgment was rendered in illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The learned counsel without denying the fact that petitioner entered into plea bargain in a case registered against him under N.A.B.
Ordinance, 1999, emphasized that the disposal of the criminal case in terms of section 25 of N.A.B.
Ordinance, 1999, in absence of corresponding provisions in the election law, would not create disqualification to contest the election.
5. There is no cavil to the legal position that an order adverse to the interest of a person cannot be passed without providing him an A opportunity of hearing and departure to this rule may render the order illegal. In the present case, the High Court having taken the view that petitioner was served in terms of section 14(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, proceeded to decide the appeal and he was ' declared not qualified to contest the election on account of earning patent disqualification under section 15 read with section 25 of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999. Section 15 of the ibid Act provides as under:--- "(15) Disqualification to contest elections [or to hold public office].
[(a) Where an accused person is convicted [of an offence under section 9 of this Ordinance], he shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or in service of Pakistan or any Province: ' Provided that any accused person who has availed the benefit of [subsection (b) of section] 25 shall also be deemed to have been convicted for an offence under this Ordinance, and shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he has discharged his liabilities relating to the matter or transaction in issue, for seeking or from bearing elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any Province.
(b) Any person convicted of an offence [under section 9 of this Ordinance] shall not be allowed to apply for or be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of any loan or advances [or other financial accommodation by] any bank or financial institution [owned or controlled by the Government] for a period of 10 years from the date of conviction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner without denying the fact that petitioner availed the benefit of section 25 of the N.A.B. Ordinance, 1999, contended that disqualification mentioned in section 15 of the ibid Ordinance would not be automatically read in election laws unless the said laws are amended by Act of Parliament. We are afraid, the qualification and disqualification to contest the election for the membership of the National and Provincial Assemblies are provided under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution read with Representation of the People Act, 1976, and notwithstanding any other disqualification mentioned in any other law, if a person is suffering from any disqualification mentioned in Article 63 of the Constitution, he is disqualified to contest the election and become a member of the National or Provincial Assembly.
7. The petitioner under Article 63(h) and (i) has earned disqualification of the nature by virtue of which he would be debarred to contest the election. The above clauses of Article 63 of the Constitution provides as under:- "(h) he has been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force: or
(i) he has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan or service of a corporation or office set up or, controlled by the Federal Government, Provincial Government or a Local Government on the grounds of misconduct or moral turpitude; or
8. The fact relating to the earning of disqualification under section 15 read with 25 of the N.A.B.
Ordinance, 1999, is not denied and thus the disqualification mentioned therein if read in context to the Article 63 of the Constitution, the petitioner would certainly be disqualified to contest the election.
9. In view thereof, the technical objection regarding service and not providing an opportunity of hearing by the High Court is of no significance and in any case, the petitioner has been heard by us on merits, therefore, his grievance on this behalf stands redressed. In consequence to the above discussion, these petitions having no substance cannot succeed on merits and are accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.