' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.--- The appellant has assailed the vires of order dated 4-4-2013 passed by the learned Returning Officer NA-60, Chakwal-I, whereby the nomination papers of respondent No,2 were accepted.
2. It is contended that respondent No,2 wilfully gave incorrect statement as he has failed to furnish details of the cattle owned and kept by him; that in the nomination papers filed for the Provincial Assembly (PP-22) he had shown that he owns 124-cows, 71-buffalos and 100-calfs but in the nomination form filed for the National Assembly, he has concealed this important information; that this concealment is also evident from the statement of assets submitted in the general elections 1995; that he had concealed the loan obtained by him from Zarai Taraqiati Bank; that he did not furnish the correct particulars of the agricultural income tax and that he has not given the details of the assets of his children/dependents.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 has frankly conceded the discrepancy and contended that the cattle could not be mentioned due to clerical mistake. It is urged that had there been any mens rea or the respondent wanted to conceal this fact, he would have not mentioned it in the nomination form submitted before the learned Returning Officer Provincial Assembly; that agricultural tax is specifically mentioned in the separate statement appended with the form; that the loan from Zarai Taraqiati Bank was repaid in time and there is nothing due from him or his spouse; that his children are adults and are not dependent upon him so he was not required to furnish the details of their assets; that the assets held by his wife are clearly mentioned and that the appellant had not filed objections before the Returning Officer so has no locus standi to file the appeal. In support of the contentions, reliance is placed on 2003 MLD 222, PLD 2011 Lahore 11, PLJ 2012 Lahore 279, 2000 SCMR 712 and 2010 CLC 1444 (Lahore).
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant is bona fide registered elector of the constituency and filed the objections but the learned Returning Officer did not bring the same on record.
5. It is true there is a difference between the assets as shown in the nomination form for the Provincial Assembly and nomination papers submitted for NA-60. The cattle are not mentioned in the movable assets given in the nomination form of the National Assembly but there appears to be no ulterior motive on part of the respondent. Had there been any mens rea, he would have not mentioned it in the nomination form for the Provincial Assembly also. The clerical or arithmetical mistakes do not constitute a valid ground for rejection of the nomination papers under section 14(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and keep a validly nominated candidate out of the contest. The assets held by the spouse are explicitly mentioned. He was not required to furnish the information regarding assets held by his adult children who are not dependent upon him. The statement appended with the nomination papers clearly reveals that his children are adult. The contention that agricultural tax has not been paid according to the actual income arising from the land has also no force because unless the order passed by the assessing authority is set aside by the appellate forum, the same would be deemed to be correct. There is nothing on record to show that he is a defaulter in payment of bank loan or dues of any department. The factual controversies cannot be resolved in the summary proceedings under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. In this respect reliance is placed on Muhammad Afzal Khan Dhandla v. Election Tribunal and 3 others (PLD 2010 SC 959). The appellant did apply for issuance of the copies as is clear from the application moved by him before the learned Returning Officer and order passed thereon but as per order of the learned Returning Officer no objection was filed. A presumption of correctness is attached to this order. No tangible proof is available to show that the appellant had in fact filed any objection qua nomination of the respondent No,2. Under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, only a candidate can file an appeal against acceptance of the nomination papers of the rival candidate. No doubt, this right is given to an elector, who has filed objections under rule 5(1) of the Representation of the People Rules, 1977. The appellant has neither filed the objections before the Returning Officer being elector nor is ,a candidate so lacks the locus standi to file the appeal.
6. For the reasons supra, the appeal is without merits and, is also not maintainable so same is dismissed accordingly.