1. This appeal under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be called as ROPA 1976) is directed against the order dated 25-4-2014 passed by the Returning Officer PP-136, Narowal-V whereby appellant's objections on the nomination papers of Lt. Col. (Rtd.) Shujjat Ahmed Khan/respondent No.2 (to be called hereinafter as respondent) for contest of by-elections were rejected.
2. 2.Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. 3.The appellant a rival candidate for by-elections PP-136 Narowal-V scheduled to be held on 22-5- 2014 had raised following two objections on the nomination papers of the respondent:--- (i)that the respondent is defaulter of the cost of election petition amounting to Rs.250323/- as per memo of cost dated 26-3-2014 passed by the Election Tribunal Lahore, and (ii)that the respondent has been found guilty of illegal practice as per order dated 26-3-2014 passed by the Election Tribunal Lahore and thus does not qualify to conduct the election.
4. With the above objections the appellant sought for rejection of respondent's nomination papers in terms of section 99 (1-A)(b,h,i) of ROPA 1976.
5. 4.At the outset when confronted that the costs of election petition being a personal financial obligation of the respondent does not fall within the ambit of `government dues' or 'public exchequer' learned counsel for the appellant concedes and does not press the first objection, however contends that the second objection raised by him before the learned Returning Officer in view of the finding of Election Tribunal Lahore vide order dated 26-3-2014 regarding respondent's illegal practice is sufficient to disqualify him to contest the election. In this regard learned counsel has referred section 99(1-A)(i) of the ROPA 1976 which reads below:--- "A person shall be disqualified from being elected as, and from being, a member of an Assembly, if-- (i)he is found guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice under any law for the time being in force, unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date on which that order takes effect;"
6. To fortify his argument learned counsel for the appellant has referred to para-12 of the order dated 26-3-2014 passed by the Election Tribunal Lahore, which reads below:--- "12.Learned counsel for the returned candidate further contended that the returned candidate was not answerable for the illegalities/irregularities committed by the Returning Officers or the members of polling staff as provided by section 68 (2)(a) of the Act, 1976. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law would show that satisfaction of the Tribunal that the corrupt and illegal practices had not been committed with the consent and connivance of the returned candidate is a condition precedent to invoke the protection of section 68(2)(a) of the Act. In the case in hand it has been established conclusively that the two Returning Officers joined hands and hijacked the election from PP-136, Narowal. This is a matter of record that perverse sense of authority drove the Returning Officers to pervert the process of election at the cost of dignity and prestige of the office without realizing that the State functionaries mortgaging their functions to others for some unholy considerations have never been treated with respect in the society. The Returning Officers might have featured their performance sheet with the election in question without realizing enormity of the mode of working, which cannot be approved of. The Returning Officers posed themselves to be stickler for rule of law, but they slaughtered the sanctity of election process with the sword of their official authority. They misappropriated and tampered with the election record under the impression that the election being closed-door-affair, they would succeed to blindfold the system.
7. It was inapt and detrimental thinking of the Returning Officers, which polluted the election process.
8. Such a conduct calls for reform, otherwise the unholy tendency to exercise official authority over and above the law may erode the system. There was a time when the State functionaries holding important positions were known as saints, who could do no wrong. Unfortunately, the Returning Officers tarnished the public image as they stepped over the legal authority. The need of the hour is to nip the evil in the bud. This is high time to dispel the common perception that the high ranking officials are not amenable to law of the land. I am not ready to accept that the Returning Officers played havoc with the system of their own. The returned candidate being beneficiary of the hijacked election is bound to face the legal consequences of the aforesaid illegal and corrupt practices."
9. 5.Bare reading of the concluding lines of the above quoted paragraph makes it crystal clear that the learned Election Tribunal Lahore has not found the respondent directly responsible for any illegal and corrupt practice rather being beneficiary declared him bound to face the legal consequences of illegal and corrupt practices of the State functionaries. The expression "he is found guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice under any law for the time being in force" used in clause
(l) subsection (1-A) of section 99 of the ROPA 1976 bears significant importance and also manifests intent of the legislature. In this case since the respondent is not directly found guilty of corrupt or illegal practice under any law therefore his candidature does not suffer from disqualification under section 99(1-A)(l) of ROPA 1976. Appellant's second objection therefore is unfounded and untenable. In this regard argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force and thus repelled.
10. 6.Besides above learned counsel for the appellant has frankly admitted that the order dated 26-3- 2014 passed by the Election Tribunal Lahore has been challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through an appeal which has been admitted for hearing and pending adjudication before the Hon'ble apex Court.
11. 7.For the above reasons, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 25-4-2014 passed by the Returning Officer. This appeal therefore having no merits is dismissed in limine.