' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.--- Through this judgment, we propose to dispose of Election Appeal No,1 of 2013 and Election No,2 of 2013 moved by Fatehullah Khan Miankhel and Umar Farooq Khan Miankhel respectively, as both the appeals call into question the order passed on 11-11-2013 whereby the learned Returning Officer PK-67 D.I.Khan-IV accepted the nomination papers of respondent No,1, which is as follow:--- "I have examined this nomination paper in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and decide as follows:--- ' Objections raised with the condition that candidate is not Sadiq and Ameen and he has concealed material facts. Both sides heard in detail. Objections raised are hereby turned down.
Nomination paper of the candidate namely: Ikramullah Khan Gandapore is hereby accepted."
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the year 2005, respondent No,1 submitted his nomination papers for contesting election in the constituency, showing his educational qualification as Shahadat-ul-Aalmia, whereas in the nomination paper filed by respondent No,1 to contest the present election in constituency PK-67, he has shown his qualification as B.A. He argued that non-mentioning of qualification of Shahadat-ul-Aalmia in nomination paper amounts to concealment and suppression of facts and establishes that respondent No,1 made false statement dishonestly and does not qualify to be a righteous, honest and sagacious person in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He also contended that no tax shown to have been paid on the shares owned by the respondent in different business projects and Mills etc. He also added that B.A. Degree Annexed with nomination paper is bogus one and further submitted that nomination papers of respondent No,1 be rejected on the reversal of impugned order.
3. As against that, learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that no concealment or suppression of facts has been made by the respondent, rather has mentioned the educational qualification in specified column in accordance with law. It was added that mere non-mentioning of Shahadat- ul-Aalmia apart from B.A. Would in no eventuality make a case of dishonesty or disqualification in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It was contended that the particulars and descriptions of properties owned by respondent No,1 have been given along with details of taxes. It was added that mere bald allegations regarding B.A degree have been made by the appellants without any proof, even tentative in nature. He argued that there is no declaration by a competent Court or conviction against the respondent No,1 with respect to allegations levelled by the appellants and mere frivolous objection has been raised, which was rightly turned down by the Returning Officer and the instant appeals being misconceived are liable to be dismissed.
4. We have given our deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. We would like to reproduce relevant clauses of sections 12 and 14 of the. Representation of the People Act, 1976 as under:- "12. Nomination for election.--- (1) Any elector of a constituency may propose or second the name of any duly qualified person to be a member for that constituency.
(2) Every nomination shall be made by a separate nomination paper in the prescribed form which shall be signed both by the proposer and the seconder and shall on solemn affirmation made and signed by the candidate, accompany---
(a) a declaration that he has consented to the nomination and that he fulfills the qualifications specified in Article 62 and is not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 63 or any other law for the time being in force for being elected as a member;
(b) A declaration about his party affiliation if any, along with a certificate from the political party showing that he is a party candidate from the constituency for which nomination papers are being filed;
(c) A declaration that no loan for an amount of two million rupees or more, obtained from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, or any business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has or has got such loan written off;
(d) A declaration that he his spouse or any of his dependents or a business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid is not in default in payment of government dues or utility charges, including telephone, electricity, gas and water charges of an amount in excess of ten thousand rupees, for over six months at the time of filing of nomination papers;
(e) a statement specifying his educational qualifications, occupation, National Identity Card number and National Tax Number, if any. Along with attested copies thereof: that
(f) a statement of his assets and liabilities and those of his spouse and dependents on the prescribed form as on the preceding thirtieth day of June."
14. Security--- (1) The candidates, their election agents (the proposers and seconders and one other person authorized in this behalf by each candidate) (and an elector who has filed an objection to the nomination of a candidate) may attend the scrutiny of nomination papers and the Returning Officer shall give them reasonable opportunity for examining all nomination papers delivered to him under section 12: ' Provided that an elector who has filed an objection to the nomination of a candidate shall only attend the scrutiny of the nomination paper of that candidate.
(2) The Returning Officer shall, in the presence of the persons attending the scrutiny under subsection (1) examine the nomination papers and decide any objection raised by any such person to any nomination:
(3) The Returning Officer may, either of his own motion or upon any objection (either by an elector or) (by any person referred to in subsection (1)) conduct such summary enquiry as he may think fit and may reject nomination paper if he is satisfied that--- ' Provided that:- (1)
(1 a)
(ii) The Returning Officer shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature and may allow any such defect to be remedied forthwith, including an error in regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate or (his proposer or seconder) so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll: and
(iii) ..................................................................................................
(3A) .................................................................................................
(4) The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting it and shall, in the case of rejection, record brief reasons therefor.
(5) A candidate, may prefer an appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or, as the case may be, accepting the nomination paper of the candidate to the Tribunal constituted for the constituency to which the nomination relates and consisting of not less than two or more than three Judges of the High Court nominated by the Commissioner, with the approval of the President, and such appeal shall be summarily decided within such time as may be notified by the Commission and any order passed thereon shall be final.
(5A) ...................................................................
(6) ............
(7) ............................................................
6. A bare reading of these provisions suggests that scrutiny of nomination papers can be made by Returning Officer either of own motion or upon any objection and he can conduct summary enquiry and decide the objections. No detailed probe is the requirement of law at this stage and similarly the appellate Tribunal has to decide the issue summarily.
7. The contentions of learned counsel for the appellants to the extent of degree are not supported by any documentary proof, even tentatively. The Returning Officer was not required to hold a detailed enquiry as the same was not permissible under section 14(5) of the Act ibid.
8. The details of income tax also find mention in the nomination papers and if defect, not of substantive nature, found can be remedied by the Returning Officer as envisaged by sub-clause
(ii) of the proviso to subsection (3) of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
9. Mentioning of Shahadat-ul-Aalmia in column specified in nomination paper in the elections, 2005 and non-mentioning of the same in the nomination papers for present election, rather educational qualification mentioned as B.A. Would not amount to concealment or suppression of facts or false/incorrect statement in material particulars. The Returning Officer has exercised the discretion properly by making scrutiny in summary manner as per mandate of law, as detailed probe is not required at this stage. There is no force in the submissions made on behalf of appellants, as the objections made before the Returning Officer do not contain any proof of allegations. The appellants were also unable E to show any declaration by competent Court or order of conviction against respondent No,1 viz-a-viz the allegation against him.
10. Quite apart, the respondent cannot be held as not honest, righteous and Ameen in terms of Article 62(1)(t) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which is reproduced below for ready reference:--- "Qualification for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).--- (1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless...
(f) He is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a Court of law."
11. The perusal of referred Article reveals that the case of respondent No,1 does not fall within the ambit of disqualification. The allegations levelled against the respondent No,1 are misconceived.
The learned Returning Officer has passed the order strictly in accordance with the provisions of sections 12 and 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, which warrants no interference.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the nomination papers of respondent No,1 were rightly accepted by the learned Returning Officer and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned herein. Resultantly, the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the judgment be sent to learned Returning Officer concerned for information and necessary action.