' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---This appeal calls into question the order dated 1-4-2013 whereby the learned Returning Officer PP-20, Chakwal-I, accepted the nomination paper of respondent No,2.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the year 1996 respondent No,2 submitted his nomination paper for contesting the election of PP-16, Cliakwal-I, and in the said nomination paper respondent No,2 declared himself to be F.A. However, in the nomination paper filed by respondent No,2 to contest the present election, he has declared himself to be a Matriculate. This on the face of it establishes that respondent No,2 is a dishonest person and had made misstatements in the nomination paper filed by him in the year 1996. Respondent No,2, therefore, cannot be termed as sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Further submits that respondent No,2 is a defaulter of Government dues.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 has questioned the maintainability of the appeal by inter alia maintaining that the appellant is not an elector in the constituency in question, therefore, he cannot file the instant appeal. Further submits that there is no declaration or conviction from a Court of law to the effect that respondent No,2 is guilty of the allegations being levelled against him by the appellant. In such circumstances, respondent No,2 cannot be held to be not sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant appeal is competent inasmuch as it has been filed under section 14(5A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, whereby any person can lay information before this Tribunal regarding disqualification of a candidate.
5. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No,2 inasmuch as the appellant has been unable to show us any declaration/conviction/order of any Court of law against respondent No,2 vis-a-vis the allegations being levelled against him. The learned counsel for the appellant has similarly been unable to show us that the order of the learned Returning Officer has been passed by exercise of excess of jurisdiction or that it is perverse. Reliance is placed on the judgment reported as "Rizwan Zouq v. Returning Officer NA-162 SWL-III, Sahiwal and another"
(2013 CLC 271).
7. Under the circumstances, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be sent to the learned District Returning Officer and the Returning Officer concerned for information and necessary action.