Rana AFTAB AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AJMAL and another

' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---In order to contest bye-election to the seat of Punjab Provincial Assembly PP-163, inter alia the petitioner and respondent No,1, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed their nomination papers, which were accepted by the Returning Officer on 12-4-2010. It may be pertinent to mention here that at the time of the scrutiny (or even before) of the respondent's papers no objection was raised by the petitioner or any other candidate or an elector regarding his ineligibility to contest the election on any ground whatsoever; likewise no appeal against the said acceptance, before the special appellate tribunal constituted for that purpose, as provided by the law, was filed. Anyhow, the petitioner on 28-4-2010 initiated a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, with the factual backdrop, that the respondent had earlier contested the General Elections of 2008 from the same constituency and an objection was raised by Rana Muhammad Usman, a candidate of that election to the effect that the SANAD of the respondent allegedly obtained by him from Wafaq-ul-Madaras-Al-Arabia to fulfil his educational qualification of graduation, relied upon and attached to his nomination papers is fake and bogus, but by overruling the objection, the nomination papers of the respondent were accepted by the Returning Officer. The said candidate, is stated to have filed an appeal against this acceptance before the appellate tribunal, which according to the petitioner's counsel, summoned the record of the Madrasa and observed in its interim order dated 17-12-2007 that the SANAD is bogus however, the matter could not be finally decided due to the lapse of the period prescribed by law for the disposal of such appeals. Anyhow, the respondent succeeded in the Election, the contesting candidate (Mr. Usman) challenged the same through an election petition, in which the validity of the SANAD was also questioned. It seems that the respondent being aggrieved of some interim order, passed by the election tribunal in the aforesaid petition (perhaps proceeding ex parte against him) assailed it in CPLA No, 2049-L of 2009. But before the hearing of the matter, he rendered his resignation which was accepted by the competent authority and was so notified on 24-3-2010. Thus, when the noted CPLA came up for hearing before this Court, it was disposed of vide order dated 25-3-2010 (the text of this order shall be reproduced at the proper place). Another CPLA No, 287 of 2008 pertaining to one Jamshed Dasti, MNA was also fixed on the same date, involving the issue of the validity of his Sanad. However, in the judgment of that matter dated 25-3- 2006 it has been observed, "Muhammad Ajmal, MPA from Faisalabad (a petitioner in Civil Petition No, 2049-L of 2009) who also stood accused of having contested their respective elections on the strength of fake and bogus degrees and "SANADS" had also elected not to defend the said allegations; had chosen not even to appear before us in person and had instead tendered their respective resignation from their respecti ye seats". On the basis of the above observation, the order of the tribunal dated 17-12-2007, and by also averring in his constitutional petition that in the nomination papers filed to contest General Elections, 2008, the respondent has stated his qualification as B.A. (Graduate) while in those now filed of the instant bye elections, it is mentioned to be a Parha Likha {{URDU TEXT}} this according to the petitioner fully established and proved that the respondent was not a graduate when he contested the former election and made a false declaration by relying upon a fake and bogus SANAD, consequently, he not being sagacious, righteous, non profligate, honest and Ameen was thus not qualified to be chosen or elected as a member of the Provincial Assembly as per Article 62(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (the Constitution).

2. The petition has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 29-4-2010, on the basis that the process of election has commenced attracting the provision of Article 225 of the Constitution with its corresponding limitation on the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution; the petitioner has not raised objection to the nomination of the respondent at the time of scrutiny of his papers and has also not filed any appeal thereof, therefore the constitutional petition was also held not maintainable; hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that it is a clear, simple and a straight forward case, which without any further probe or investigation, rather on the basis of admitted facts establishes beyond doubt that the respondent is eminently, ineligible, thus is hit by Article 62(f) of the Constitution. In support of his case he has raised the following points:--

(i) In the earlier General Elections the respondent asserted qualification.Based upon the "Sanad" which was declared bogus by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 17-12-2007.

(ii) The SANAD of the respondent as fake and bogus has conclusively been determined and so declared by this Court in the judgment dated 25-3-2010 (see the portion reproduced above);

(iii) In the previous nomination papers the respondent claimed to be a graduate, but in those filed now, he has conceded not being so, therefore, this by itself is an admission that his earlier stance of graduation was fraudulent, untrue and deceitful;

(iv) The non-raising of objection at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers would not debar the petitioner to challenge the respondent's nomination when the lack of qualification was so manifest, and floating on the surface of the record, rather it was the duty of the Returning Officer himself to have rejected the papers, especially in' the light of the judgment of this Court dated 25- 3-2010 passed in C.P. No, 278, as the copy thereof was sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan; reference in this behalf has been made to para No, 21 thereof;

(v) By relying upon the judgments Ahad Sharif alias Muhammad Ahad and another v. Javed Tariq and others, 2006 SCM R 1356 and Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Bar v. Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others passed by this Court in CP No 287 of 2008 dated 25-3-2010, it is submitted that the bar contained in Article 225 of the Constitution was not attracted due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the respondent has pressed for an absolute bar in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, as envisaged by Article 225 thereof. He in support has made mention to the judgments reported as Federation of Pakistan and others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2009 SC 644), Mehmood Ahmad Butt and another v. Returning Officer, Union Council No, 159/04 Kamoke, District Gujranwala and 2 others (2008 SCM R 736), Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary v.

Javaid Hashmi and others (PLD 1989 SC 396) and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, N.A. 158, Naushero Feroze and others (1994 SCM R 1299). It is also submitted that the statutory right to challenge the nomination of the respondent before the Returning Officer was available to the petitioner, but no such objection was raised, even the remedy of appeal against the acceptance of nomination papers was not availed, and there is no explanation for this vital and fatal lapse on the petitioner's behalf, therefore it has been rightly held by the High Court that the Constitutional Petition was not maintainable; serious controversy of facts is involved in the matter which cannot be resolved while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution; the paragraph of the judgment of this Court (reproduced above) to which reference has been made by the petitioner's counsel was not passed in the respondent's petition, which admittedly was independently disposed of vide a separate judgment dated 25-3- 2010 finding no mention therein that the SANAD of the respondent is invalid for any reason; the respondent had not resigned to shun the consequences of alleged bogus of fake SANAD, rather he had earlier contested the election on the ticket of PML (Q) and, wanted to leave the party so as to join PML (N) and this is the reason of his relinquishing the seat; which is a bona fide act, meant to overcome and avoid the legal repercussions and the stigma of floor crossing; that the respondent was not a party in the matter i,e, the CP. No,2049-1 of 2009, therefore, any observation made in the decision of that case shall not be relevant and binding qua him; there has never been any judicial determination by any forum of competent jurisdiction including the Returning Officer that the SANAD of the respondent is fake or bogus, thus his right to contest the election cannot be circumvented on account of unfounded presumptions and inferences; as per Article 10(a) of the Constitution, the respondent cannot be de-franchised in the manner as claimed by the petitioner without being given an opportunity of a fair and proper trial, in which he (the respondent) should be enabled to establish the genuineness of his SANAD. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner since has the remedy of challenging the election under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), if the respondent turns out as a returned candidate.

Thus in the circumstances his constitutional petition has been rightly dismissed by the High Court.

5. Heard. The preamble of the Act reads as follows:- "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the conduct of elections to the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies and to guard against corrupt and illegal practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and for the determination of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections, and other matters arising out of or connected therewith."

From the above and also by taking into consideration the Act as a whole, there can be no cavil that it is a comprehensive code on the subject of "Election" which provides in detail and encompasses the wholesome process of election by prescribing a thorough mechanism thereto and a specific methodology for the resolution of the disputes arising in connection therefrom. The word "election" has been defined in section 2(ix) of the Act as "election to the seat of a member held under this Act"; reading this meaning along with the said expression appearing in Article 225 of the Constitution, as has been interpreted in the case reported as Election Commission of Pakistan v Javaid Hashmi (PLD 1989 SC 396), and the very conceptual aspect of it, the term Election does not signify a single event or a happening, rather catena of events and it can safely be deemed synonymous and inter-changeable to the whole "Process of election", which undoubtedly shall commence with the issuance of a notification by the Election Commission of Pakistan/The Chief Election Commissioner (in the case of bye-election) under section 11 of the Act, calling upon the constituency to elect its representatives and this process of election shall come to an end with the declaration of the result as per section 42 of the Act.

6. The election process can, however, be broadly divided into two segments, one the period between the date of nominations of the candidates till the day before the polling, which can be termed as a pre-poll stage, while the second shall start with the day of the polling and terminates with the declaration of the result of the election and can be signified as post-poll stage.

7. At the pre-poll stage the significant disputes which may arise in relation to the election, are about the valid nominations of the candidates, inter alia, involving the question about their qualifications/disqualifications; the other issues may be regarding the polling scheme, deputing the polling staff etc and/or the violations of any election laws/rules or the instructions given by the Election Commission of Pakistan, which may be committed by the official responsible for the conduct of the election and/or by the candidates or their supporters in the course of elections campaign. This could also be true for other illegalities, corrupt and illegal practices.

8. As far as the dispute about the valid nominations of the candidates are concerned section 14 of the Act lays down a comprehensive and a particularized procedure vis-a-vis the scrutiny of the nomination papers, which specifically envisages the filing of objections thereto by the candidate, his proposer or secondar etc. Or even an elector; the Returning Officer while scrutinizing the papers is obliged to decide the objections, however, he is also authorized of his own motion to examine the valid nomination of a candidate and to look into his qualifications/disqualifications. As per section 14(3) for the determination thereof, the RO may also conduct a summary inquiry as he may deem fit, with the empowerment under subsection 3(d)(1)(a) to require any agency or authority to produce any document or the record. It may be pertinent to mention here that the scope of such inquiry, however, is, short, brief, concise and immediate and in any case shall be in contrast to a full fledge trial, especially when there shall be substantial and genuine controversy about the facts or the application of law which is dependent upon the factual resolution. Be that as it may, by following the above course the RO may reject the nomination papers of a candidate, if he is satisfied that (a) the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a Member; (b) the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination papers; (c) any provision of section 12 or section 13 has not been complied with [or submits any false or incorrect declaration nor statement in any material particular] or (d) the signatures of the proposer or seconder are not genuine.

' Under section 14(5) of the Act, a candidate has a right to file an appeal before the special Tribunal constituted for this purpose, consisting of not less than two and not more than three Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Commissioner with the approval of the President; and such appeal shall be summarily decided within the time as may be notified by the Commission and any order passed therein shall be final. Besides the above, for resolving any other election controversy at the pre-poll stage and in order to ensure free and fair elections the Election Commission of Pakistan. The Chief Election Commissioner (as the case may be) has considerable powers under sections 103, 103(A) and 103(AA) i,e, power of the Commission to declared to poll void and is further vested with the residual power/authority under section 104 of the Act.

9. Besides the above, under command of Article 225 of the Constitution which is couched in the form of a prohibition, if a dispute of any kind or nature arises out of the election/election process, may it be of a pre or post-poll stage, and is earlier either not resolved as permissible under the law or non-resolvable, due to its peculiar nature or reasons or inadequacies of the Act to meet the exigencies at the relevant time, it shall not be called in question except through an election petition presented to such a tribunal and in such manner as may be determined by Act of Parliament, which obviously is that Act of 1976. According to section 52 read with section 55 of the Act an exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon an election tribunal to settle all such issues relating to the election. It may be pertinent to mention here that the noted two provisions are quite lucid, overwhelming and of utmost amplitude, thus, notwithstanding the stage of the dispute (pre or post poll) the aggrieved contesting candidate may seek the relief and the tribunal shall grant it if the case is proved, by declaring, (a) the election of a returned candidate void; (b) the election as a whole void; (c) the election of the returned candidate being void and the petitioner (of the election petition) declared as elected. The appropriate relief in the election petition undoubtedly can be sought and allowed by the election tribunal which is founded on the ground that the returned candidate was either not qualified or was disqualified to contest the election and/or there were corrupt and illegal practices or illegalities in the conduct and in the course of election.

' The aforestated to an extent explains the elections/the process of election and the procedure to be adopted for the purposes of resolving the dispute connected thereto or arising therefrom, and in the light of Article 225 of the Constitution it is mandatory to be followed without any exception. If a case squarely falls within the above category the bar of the noted Article is absolute and shall be so attracted as has been held in the dictums cited by the learned counsel for the respondent.

Whereas the two judgments on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner's counsel are distinguishable on their own facts, in which the said Article and the relevant precedents of this Court have not been considered or distinguished.

10. Having stated the above legal position and notwithstanding the bar of Article 225 of the Constitution, rather independent thereto, we shall examine the question of the maintainability of the petitioner's constitutional petition, for his non-availing the statutory remedy available to him under the Act. In this respect it may be mentioned that though the relevant documents such as the order of this Court passed in C.P. No,287 of 2008; the order of the tribunal dated 17-12-2007; the previous nomination papers of the respondent were all available with the petitioner, still no objections were filed by him nor by any other candidate etc or the elector. When confronted the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any plausible explanation for this lapse; however he repeatedly by referring to the said three documents persistently submitted that the respondent is inherently and imminently disqualified, thus if he is allowed to contest the election, it shall be a fraud on the election and therefore, the Returning Officer of his own motion should have rejected the nomination papers; and due to the failure on his (RO) part the order of acceptance of the papers was/is amenable to the Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, irrespective of the lapse in raising the objections or filing of the appeal. Besides, the High Court on the basis of the afore-noted material, itself should have declared the respondent as not qualified on the touchstone of Article 62(t) of the Constitution and debarred him from contesting the election, as the representation of the people of Pakistan in the Assemblies as a sacred trust, which the respondent on account of his immoral act/conduct was ineligible to discharge.

11. We have considered the above and are constrained to hold that the constitutional jurisdiction (reference Article 199) of the High Court in all the cases cannot be invoked as a matter of right, course or routine, rather such jurisdiction has certain circumventions which the Court is required to keep in view while exercising its extraordinary discretionary powers, as the conditions mentioned in Article 199 of the Constitution are obviously meant for the purposes of regulation of the Courts jurisdiction and the availability of "other remedy" is one of such limitations. When the petitioner has no explanation to offer, as to why the "other remedy", which is a definite one in nature; is time bound and is, specifically designed and prescribed by the legislature keeping into consideration time constraints in the election process, but has not been availed for any good reason, by the petitioner. Whether still the High Court should have imperatively interfered in the matter and the refusal thereof, should be construed as an erroneous or patently illegal order or an order suffering from any jurisdictional defect calling for the intervention by this Court in its instant jurisdiction? The answer is in negative. This shall be moreso, when there are disputed questions of fact involved in the matter and no conclusive determination, regarding the lack of qualification or disqualification of a respondent has been made by a forum of competent jurisdiction; even not by a Returning Officer, because no objection was raised to his candidature at the appropriate point of time. In the above context it shall be quite germane to rely upon the judgment of this Court reported as The Presiding Officer v. (1) Sadruddin Ansari and (2) Lal Muhammad Bin Yousuf (PLD 1967 SC 569), in which Hamoodur Rehman, J has held:-- "Ordinarily the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would decline to interfere in cases of election, because, it is desirable that the decision on a matter of disputed elections should as soon as possible become final and conclusive. But this is not the only reason. Another valid reason for so declining to interfere is because by so doing it would involve itself into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a tribunal rather than for a Court exercising the prerogative power. The fact, therefore, that an alternative remedy is provided by law should not only upon the above principles but upon general principles too disincline a Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in a case where such a remedy is still available."

12. Resultantly, in the circumstances of the case, the High Court had rightly refused to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction, when an appropriate, efficacious and adequate alternate remedy available to the petitioner has not been availed by him without any justification. The High Court in such like cases is not bound to issue the writ, especially when there was no material on record to eminently and conclusively establish the inherent lack (as shall be explained in succeeding part of this judgment while dilating on another point) of respondent's qualification so that he could be hit by Article 62(f) of the Constitution. It may be pertinent to mention here that to hold a person lacking honesty, being not, Sagacious, righteous, Ameen and non-profligate, in other words is to declare him a fraud, cheat and dishonest, etc. Which shall be a stigma on his face entailing great immense, and innumerable legal and social consequences and repercussions; this to our mind shall not be justified without there being an adjudication made by the Court of competent jurisdiction to hold him carrying such a "vice". In this connection reference can be made to the judgment of this Court reported as Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD SC 265), in which it has been held "if a person involved in corruption and corrupt practices has been finally adjudged to be so, then on the basis of such final judgment his candidature on the touchstone of Art.62(f) of the Constitution could be adjudged to the effect whether he was sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest or Ameen". This means that the declaration, determination and adjudication of a person falling within the mischief of the noted Article by appropriate forum is a prerequisite. Such determination in appropriate cases can also be possible though the medium of Retuning Officer or the appeal arising therefrom, but it can hardly be agreed if it should be straight away done in the Writ Jurisdiction when there is a factual controversy involved. We are also not impressed by the submission that the Returning Officer should have suo motu rejected the respondent's nomination paper, or that in view of the alleged imminent and inherent disqualification the High Court should have independently debarred him from contesting the election; moreover the reference in this behalf made to paragraph No,21 of the judgment declined in C.P. No, 287 of 2008 is misconceived as that direction was restricted to the case of Mr. Jamshed Dasti and that too in his case. In the light of the above it is held that the Writ Petition of the petitioner was not maintainable.

13. Despite the above, but in order to satisfy ourselves whether the SANAD of the respondent, is fake and has been so adjudged by a forum of competent jurisdiction, we shall venture to analyse if on the basis of the material relied upon by the petitioner and the submissions made by his counsel it can be so held and the respondent, can be declared not qualified under Article 62(f) of the Constitution. In this context the facts of the case are quite simple and have been concisely stated earlier. It is very much clear from those that in the General Elections of 2008 the respondent though mentioned in his nomination papers possessing the qualification of B.A. But this was on account of the SANAD, which he claimed to be equivalent thereto. This SANAD however when challenged by Rana Muhammad Usman, was not declared to be fake or bogus by the Returning Officer; in appeal filed by the said candidate before the tribunal, the record of the Madrasa was requisitioned and the tribunal in its order dated 17-12-2007 observed:- "It has been reported that the institution who has issued the document in question is not affiliated with Wafaq-ul-MadarasMultan. It has further been reported that against the serial number of document of affiliation produced by contesting respondent in fact, certificates have been issued to some other persons or institution. In nutshell, the document of affiliation is stated to be bogus.

' The tribunal further observed that:- "It has also been pointed out to the learned counsel that even if it be assumed that there is valid affiliation with said Wafaq-ulMadaras the degree or sanad itself has not been issued by the said Wafaq-ul-Madaras. Mr. Ali Akbar Qureshi, Advocate seeks a short adjournment to prepare himself in response to the said objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the attending circumstances of the case."

' It may be pertinent to state here, that Mr. Ali Akbar Qureshi, who is the counsel for the petitioner in this matter, was the counsel for Mr. Usman, the appellant of that appeal. Anyhow it is clear from this order that no categorical or conclusive determination about the invalidity and non-genuineness or otherwise of the respondent's SANAD was made by the said forum. Rather this appeal stood statutorily rejected on account of section 14(6) of the Act, as having not been decided within the prescribed period and obviously the requisite adjudication of the SANAD remained inconclusive.

The second document is the portion of the judgment of this Court dated 25-3-2010 passed in C.P.L.A. No, 287 of 2008 which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph No,

1. When the aforesaid order is carefully examined, it is conspicuous that therein too, no conclusive determination by this Court regarding the "vice" of the respondent's SANAD has been made, rather it is passingly mentioned that the respondent, who was an accused (Emphasis supplied) of a fake SANAD, has not elected to defend the said allegation and has not chosen to appear in person, and has resigned from the seat. This remark would have been of some import if the respondent was a party to the case or his petition was also disposed of together therewith. But this is not the position; the respondent was not a party thereto, rather his case was independently and separately decided through the order of the even date, the text whereof reads as under:-- "In response to the notice, issued in pursuance of dur earlier order dated 24th March, 2010, petitioner appeared along with his counsel and submitted fax copy of notification No, PAPLegis- 1(62)/2009/185, dated 24th March, 2010, issued by the Secretary, Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner has resigned as MPA from constituency PP-63 (Faisalabad).

' In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has tendered resignation from the Provincial Assembly, no further action is called for, therefore, petition is dismissed. The Election Commission of Pakistan is directed to arrange bye-elections for the constituency PP-63 (Faisalabad), in accordance with law.

' In the aforenoted there is no such findings or even an observation or a reference that the respondent's SANAD is fake; thus in law it is this judgment which shall be considered for all intents and purposes to have been passed in the respondents case (C.P. No,287 of 2008) visibly lacking a verdict about the invalidity or non-genuineness of his SANAD. The other two documents are the nomination papers of respondent filed in 2008 General elections and the present bye-election. In the former respondent has mentioned his qualification as a B.A. And now Parah Likha {{URDU TEXT}}. We have specifically questioned. Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, learned counsel for the respondent if his client is graduate and has a formal B.A. Degree, he has explained, that as the SANAD of a Madrasa acquired by his client was believed by him to be a qualification equivalent to B.A.

Therefore in the earlier nomination papers with bona fide intention, it was so mentioned, but now as a precautionary measure and in order to avoid any predicament, it is stated to be "Parha Likha' , it is submitted that on account of this amiss alone it cannot be inferred that the respondent in any manner whatsoever either expressly, tacitly or by necessary implication have admitted that his SANAD was/is bogus. Be that as it may, we are of the view that this disparity may or may not entail the consequences of the SANAD being bogus or otherwise, but in these proceedings and at this stage no safe or adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent. And it shall not be proper in this manner to de-franchise the candidate to the National or Provincial from contesting the election, and deprive him of a right which by now, with reference to Article 17 of the Constitution and the judgment of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473) is almost settled to be a fundamental right of a citizen, obviously exercisable subject to the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by the Constitution and the law.

' Moreover, in a judgment of this Court in Civil Petition No,2042 and 2043-L of 2008, we have already held:-- "We have heard that learned counsel for the parties. As regards the question about bogus degrees of the respondents filed along with the nomination papers of 2002 are concerned, suffice it to say that no determination by any forum of competent jurisdiction in this behalf has so far been made against them and even according to the case of the petitioners the criminal cases in this context is yet pending adjudication; only for the reason that the nomination papers were subsequently withdrawn by the respondents or in the bye-election they relied upon the `Sanads' which were disowned by the "Madrasa', cannot by itself be taken as a conclusive proof against them; rather the determination of such facts require considerable degree of inquiry by a Court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, in which the respondents should be enabled to propound their defence, which is their legal right, and to produce evidence to disprove the allegations against them; this obviously could not be so done in the "summary proceedings", which the Returning Officer in law is supposed to adhere and follow, while conducting the scrutiny of the nomination papers and deciding the objections thereto."

Therefore, following the noted dictum and the reasoning given herein before, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish to the satisfaction of this Court if the SANAD of the respondent was adjudged to be bogus by any competent forum and thus, his nomination papers on that basis should have been necessarily rejected by the Returning Officer and if not by him, the High Court should have interfered in the matter.

14. Before parting with this judgment we may however observe and in the strongest possible words condemn those who had contested the elections to the Parliament or the Provincial Assemblies by securing and relying upon fake and bogus degrees/SANAD and in this manner have betrayed the trust reposed in them by their electorates; they have thus polluted the sacred wellhead and the stream of democracy, rendering them incompetent and incapable of discharging their duties as the true chosen representative of the people; and the confidence bestowed upon them has been blatantly violated and breached. Such persons without any fear of doubt or contradiction are the cheats and their election is a fraud in the name thereto. In order to clean the stream from this dirt, it is expected of all the forums of competent jurisdiction where the matter about the invalidity of degrees/SANADS are pending to decide those on top priority basis and without unnecessary delay and in the shortest possible time. But any observation herein made shall not cause prejudice to any case which should be decided on its merits.

In the light of what has been stated above this petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed.