' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 6-4-2013 of the learned Returning Officer, NA-58, Attock-II, whereby the: nomination paper of respondent No,3 has been accepted.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the candidature of respondent No,3 is hit by the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, inter alia for the reasons that respondent No,3 has concealed facts as also misdeclared information regarding his assets, liabilities and government dues. Further submits that respondent No,3 is admittedly the owner of 845 kanals agricultural land but he has not made the requisite declaration regarding his agricultural income and the agricultural income tax paid thereon. Respondent No,3 has not disclosed the correct details of the foreign trips and the expenditure incurred thereon in respect of himself, his spouse and dependants. Respondent No,3 has further mentioned that he does not owe any amount/loan to any. Bank or financial institution. According to the information obtained by the appellant from the website of the State Bank of Pakistan respondent No,3 is a defaulter. Refers to Page 44 of the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the above concealment and misdeclaration the candidature of respondent No,3 is not only hit by the provisions of Article 62(1)
(f) of the Constitution but also by sections 12, 13, 14 and 99 of the Representation of the People. Act, 1976. Prays that the nomination paper of respondent No,3 may be rejected.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 controverts the stance of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that respondent No,3 has made full disclosure in his nomination paper and has appended the requisite documents therewith. In view thereof it is evident that respondent No,3 is neither guilty of concealment nor withholding of information nor is he a defaulter of any bank or Government Department. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 has presented certificates from the Al-Baraka Bank, Askari Bank and MCB Bank Ltd. In support of his contentions. He has also referred to the certificates dated 25-3-2013 issued by the Tehsildar, Pindi Gheb which are available at Pages 102 to 104 of the record of the learned Returning Officer, to contend that no amount is due from respondent No,3 in respect of agricultural tax. Further submits that respondent No,3 is Income Tax assessee and has paid millions of rupees by way of Income Tax which fact is very much clear from the copies of the Income Tax Returns filed by respondent No,3 along with his nomination paper. Further contends that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the record of the State Bank of Pakistan is erroneous as respondent No,3 placed on record the latest report of the State Bank of Pakistan which shows that respondent No,3 does not owe any amount to any bank/financial institution.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. On the basis of the submissions made before us as also the record of the learned Returning Officer we find substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No,3.. However,, we were not satisfied as to the status of the reports of the State Bank of Pakistan vis-a-vis respondent No,3 being a defaulter or not. We, therefore, called for a report from the Regional Office of the State Bank of Pakistan and today the Chief Manager, State Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, has issued a certificate which has been submitted before us by the Assistant Director, State Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi. The said certificate reads as under:--- "It is humbly submitted on behalf of the. State Bank of Pakistan that: "We have provided report of the candidates to EC? Who have defaults/write-off of Rs,2 million and above for last one year. In the attached report, Malik Sohail is defaulter of 1.7 million as on Feb. 28, 2013. As per attached report subsequent payment was also made by the candidate of 1.7 million overdue amount on March 6, 2013 and March 26, 2013."
7. In view of the above, we find that the instant appeal lacks merit 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.