' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--Through this single order we intend to decide E.A. No,25 of 2013 and Election Appeal No,51 of 2013 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are to the effect that the appellants in both appeals have been declared as validly nominated candidates to contest the forthcoming elections to the Constituency PP-40, Khushab-II. Both appellants are aggrieved of the orders of the learned Returning Officer PP-40 whereby the nomination papers of the both appellants have been accepted. For the sake of convenience the appellant in Election Appeal No,25 of 2013 shall be referred to as "the appellant" hereinafter and the appellant in Election Appeal No,51 of 2013 shall be referred to as "respondent No,2".
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No,2 is disqualified to be elected or chosen as a member of the Provincial Assembly as firstly he is deserter from the Pakistan Air Force and has been so adjudged through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Malik Saleh Muhammad Gunjial v. Kamran Elahi Bandial and others" (2008 SCM R 1). The appellant is, therefore, permanently disqualified from contesting elections on the national and provincial level. Further submits that in his nomination paper respondent No,2 had mentioned that he has the Shahadat-ulAlamia degree but he did not append a copy thereof to the nomination paper.
Respondent No,2 did not append any copies of his other educational qualifications as he was required under the law to do. Further submits that the authenticity of the degrees of respondent No,2 is, therefore, doubtful. This factum was brought to the notice of the' learned Returning Officer but he declined to hold any inquiry in this matter. No proof of authenticity of the degrees in question was produced by respondent No,2 before the learned Returning Officer. In view thereof as the authenticity of the educational qualifications of respondent No,2 was not established it would tantamount to respondent No,2 providing misleading and false information along with his nomination paper. Respondent No,2 by the said acts of omission and commission does not fall within the definition of sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen as envisaged by Article 62(1)(f) read with Article 113 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. Insofar as the objections raised by respondent No,2 to the candidature of the appellant submits that there are no discrepancies in the nomination paper filed by the appellant. The appellant has, made full disclosure. If there are any discrepancies then they are of a clerical nature and have occurred due to inadvertence and are curable.
5. In reply the learned counsel for respondent No,2 insofar as the allegation of respondent No,2 having deserted and / or absconded from the Pakistan Air Force submits that respondent No,2 has since been retired from the Pakistan Air Force and has shown us documents to this effect. As to his educational qualifications submits that respondent No,2 holds both the B.A. Degree and Shahadat- ul-Alamia degree. This fact is mentioned in the nomination paper. Respondent No,2 passed his B.A.
Degree from the University of Balochistan. Both degrees are authenticated. In the absence of any finding of any Court of law to the contrary the authenticity of the degrees cannot be challenged, therefore, respondent No,2 cannot be said to have provided misleading information along with his nomination paper. Further submits that there is no requirement under the law to provide certificates of the other qualifications along with the nomination paper.
6. 'In respect of the candidature of the appellant the learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that the appellant is guilty of concealment of facts. The appellant has concealed his true income and value of assets. The appellant has not paid his agriculture income tax and has also concealed his income from Olympia Chemicals Ltd.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. We propose to go through the objections raised by the parties against each other one by one:
(i) The objection regarding the desertion of respondent No,2 from the Pakistan Air Force and the consequential lifetime disqualification of respondent No,2 from contesting elections of Provincial or National Assemblies does not hold force simply for the reason that as per the documents shown to us by respondent No,2 he has since been retired from the service of Pakistan Air Force. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, repelled.
(ii) Insofar as the authenticity of the degrees of B.A. And Shahadat-ulAlamia of respondent No,2 is concerned suffice it to say that the appellant has failed to bring on record any decision of a Court of law to the contrary. In absence, therefore, of any decision from a Court of law the degrees of respondent No,2 cannot be declared to be non-genuine.
' As to the objections of respondent No,2 regarding the nomination paper of the appellant to the effect that he has not made full disclosure therein or has deliberately withheld information or that he has not paid income tax or agriculture income tax suffice it to say that the learned counsel for respondent No,2 has been unable to substantiate any of the allegations made in this respect.
8. Under the circumstances both appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.
9. Copies of the order be sent to the learned District Returning Officer and Returning Officer concerned for information and necessary action. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.