' The appellant impugns the order dated 7-4-2013 passed by the respondent, Returning Officer rejecting the appellant's nomination papers. The relevant part of the order reads:--- "The documents made available reflect that nomination paper of the candidate in the earlier general election the same constituency was rejected by the Hon'ble Election Tribunal on 13-12-2007 in E.A. No,59 of 2007. Subsequently he was provisionally allowed to participate in the general election from PP-82 by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore on 17-12-2007 in Writ Petition No,12048 of 2007. That Writ Petition was subsequently dismissed on 4-9-2009 by affirming the correctness of the conclusion 'arrived by Hon'ble Election Tribunal. The candidate assailed the order dated 4-9- 2009 passed by Hon'ble Lahore Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,12048 of 2007 before august Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No,169 of 2009. But subsequently the candidate resigned from the membership of Provincial Assembly and his petition before august Supreme Court of Pakistan was dismissed for non prosecution on 17-6-2009. He again contested for by-election and once again was declared returned candidate. His election was assailed in the Writ Jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore. Vide single judgment dated 3-4-201.3 passed in Writ Petition No,15025 of 2010 held that a Writ of quo warranto is no more maintainable as the Provincial Assembly has been dissolved and the matter to decide the eligibility of the candidate qua Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was left to be decided by the Returning Officer according to law."
2. In view of the matter the Returning Officer was of the opinion that the appellant had quoted inconsistent educational qualifications in the nomination papers filed in the general election held in 2008 and in the by-election held in 2010 and the present election, therefore, the latter, in view of the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was not eligible to contest the election.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter was lastly adjudicated in E.A. No,4-A/10. The Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court was of the view that the case of the appellant was one of deficiency of equivalence of the educational qualification and not the genuineness or otherwise of the documents. Writ petition filed to assail the judgment passed by the Tribunal was yet wanting adjudication when the Assemblies were dissolved and the matter was left to be decided in future by the Returning Officer, therefore, the last adjudication having been made in favour of the appellant still holding the field, the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the appellant's nomination papers is inconsistent in law. Relies on Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal and another (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1066) to argue that unless there is a finding regarding the genuineness or otherwise of documents submitted by the appellant the same cannot be declared to be fake and forged.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No,2, that the case of the appellant is that of the non-genuineness of his documents. He, in his nomination papers filed in the year 2007 responded the column pertaining to educational qualification as 'NA' that is 'not applicable'. The appellant was held having fake and bogus educational documents and having made a false declaration in the year 2007. He is ineligible in view of the provisions under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,and section 14(3)(c) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 to contest the election. It is further contended that the documents relied upon by the appellant in his earlier nomination papers filed in the year 2007 have already been declared forged and fake in E.A. No,59/2007. Relies on Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 1054).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional A.-G. As well as the learned counsel for respondent No,2.
6. The question of genuineness or otherwise of the decrees held by the appellant and relied by him in the nomination papers submitted in the year 2007 was a moot point in E.A. No,4-A/2010. It was held therein that in the case of appellant the equivalence qualification was lacking. The degree held by him were not declared to be fake or forged. This judgment holds the field and has not been set aside by any adjudication as writ petition filed to assail this judgment could not be adjudicated upon and became infructuous as the Assemblies stood dissolved. Thus, the degrees held by the appellant cannot be said to have been declared fake and forged. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Returning Officer is declared illegal and is set at naught. The appeal is accepted. Consequently, the nomination paper stands accepted.