SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---The contention of the petitioner is that under Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution") if the government dues and utility bills including telephone, electricity, gas and water charges in excess of ten thousand rupees are due for over six months at the time of filing of the nomination papers, the candidate stands disqualified and even payment of the said amount prior to the filing of the nomination papers does not condone the disqualification. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies on Reckitt & Colman of Pakistan Ltd., v. Saifuddin G. Lotia and 3 others (2000 SCM R 1924), Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774) and Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1054).
2. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel along with representative of the Election Commission of Pakistan ("ECP") submits that the intention behind Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution is that if a candidate deposits the outstanding dues prior to the filing of the nomination papers, the said disqualification is removed and the candidate can contest the elections.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution states as follows:-- "he or his spouse or any of his dependents has defaulted in payment of government dues and utility expenses, including telephone, electricity, gas and water charges in excess of ten thousand rupees, for over six months, at the time of filing his nomination papers."
5. Bare perusal of the above provision shows that a person can be disqualified from being elected as a member of the Parliament if he is a defaulter in payment of government dues and utility expenses in excess of ten thousand rupees for over six months, at the time of filing his nomination papers. The event of default is the non payment of the government dues or utility expenses for over six months at the time of filing of the nomination papers. Therefore, if a person has deposited the said dues prior to the filing of his nomination papers, he is no more a defaulter at the time of filing the nomination papers and the disqualification under Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution stands cured. This view is also echoed in section 14(3A) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 ("ROPA") which states:-- "...Where a candidate deposits any amount of loan, tax or utility charges payable by him before rejection of his nomination paper on the ground of default in payment of such loan, taxes or utility charges, such nomination paper shall not be rejected for default thereof."
6. Therefore, the correct interpretation of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution is that if the person makes the payment of the government dues or utility expenses before the time of filing of the nomination papers, the disqualification stands cured. The case-law relied upon by the petitioner is of little relevance to the controversy in hand.
7. It is, however, observed that the requirement of payment of the government charges/utility bills must be prior to the date of filing of the nomination papers and the extension of time for the payment before the rejection of the nomination papers under section 14(3A) of the ROPA does not appear to be consistent with the constitutional provision. However, this is not the question before this Court in this case and can be taken up at the appropriate time in some other case.
8. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.