' On the allegation that the appellant owed Rs,1,79,243/- on account of water-charges and penalty his nomination papers were rejected.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that imposition of penalty on water- charges does not amount to commission of an offence and cannot be termed, conviction. In view of provisions of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic Pakistan, 1973, a candidate may incur an ineligibility if he independently has defaulted in payment of water-charges for over six months period at the time of filing of his nomination papers. That is not in the case. In hand. It was not the appellant, but his father who owed the alleged amount and that too had been paid by him before passing of the impugned order, therefore, he/the appellant did not incur any ineligibility. The order passed by the Returning Officer offends the law.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Standing Counsel assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 have opposed this appeal. It is contended that at the time of filing of nomination papers, the appellant had sworn in an affidavit stating that he did not owe any dues to the Government. The water-charges were yet to be paid.
As per wrong written declaration made by him he has rendered himself ineligible to contest the election.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned Law Officers and also gone through the record.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf' of respondent No,2 has been unable to substantiate his allegation that the appellant had sworn in any such affidavit. Adding that suffering from some payable dues disentitles the appellant to contest the election in question. Moreover the water rate or penalty payable were owed by the father of the appellant. In our opinion, the provisions of Article 63(1)(4) of the Constitution are otherwise. It is only the default in payment of the Government dues including the water-charges by the candidate himself which may render a candidate ineligible, which is not in the case in hand. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4-4-2013, passed by the Returning Officer is declared illegal and is set aside. Resultantly, the nomination papers of the appellant stand accepted.