1. MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---This appeal calls into question the order dated 5-4-2013 passed by the learned Returning Officer PP-2, Rawalpindi, whereby the nomination papers of the appellant to contest the elections of the said constituency have been rejected.
2. 2.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Returning Officer by misreading the record and misapplication of the law. The appellant had made full disclosure in his nomination paper and had not made any concealment of his assets. At the time of his death the appellant's father owned a Toyota Prado (Land Cruiser) bearing Registration No.BB-7296 (Sindh). The said Prado is very old and upon the demise of the appellant's father it devolved upon his legal heirs. By way of family settlement the Prado came under the ownership and use of the appellant's mother and upon her demise by way of another family settlement the Prado became the property of the appellant's sister, a divorcee. The appellant at no point in time owned the Prado, therefore, the question of the Prado being in the name of the appellant does not arise. As to the Toyota Corolla, Model 2012 car owned by the appellant submits that it is upto the appellant to assess its value. The said car is an accidented car and, therefore, does not admit of fetching the prevalent market value of an unaccidented car. Contends that no concealment had been made in this respect. Insofar as theappellanthavingconcealedtheexistenceofhisBankAccount No.01-2454793-01 with Standard Chartered Bank is concerned, submits that as at the cut-off date i.e. 30-6-2012 the account did not exist. The account in question was opened in January, 2013 as a consequence of Citibank closing its consumer operations in Pakistan. The appellant was, therefore, constrained to open a new account in Standard Chartered Bank but at a date much later than the cut-off date, therefore, the non-mentioning of the same in the nomination paper. The appellant had, however, mentioned his Citibank account in the nomination paper. As to the credit card and the amount outstanding against it is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no column in the nomination paper requiring detail of the credit card. Even otherwise there is no outstanding balance in this respect hence non mentioning of the same. Insofar as the appellant having shares in the company known as Mehr Paper and Board (Pvt.) Ltd. and non-disclosure of this fact is concerned, submits that the said company is no longer carrying on business and has seized to have any operations. A notice to this effect has been given by the SECP to the shareholders. And the company shall be struck off from the register of the SECP and dissolved in due course of time.
3. The appellant has informed the SECP that the company has no assets or liabilities, therefore, non- disclosure is not attracted in respect of this company.
4. 3.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 controvert the stance of the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the appellant is guilty of concealment of his assets. They refer to the statement of assets and liabilities given by the appellant in his nomination form and contend that in the detail of immovable properties given by the appellant at Sr. No.4 i.e. immovable properties held in Pakistan the appellant had mentioned 10 kanals of land in Khajot, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi. The said land is stated to be inherited whereas the appellant purchased the same on 19-8-2006 through Mutation No.417. The learned counsel have submitted a copy of the mutation in support of their contentions. Further submit that the appellant is the owner of Mehr Paper and Board (Pvt.) Ltd. but has not disclosed the same in his nomination paper. Further contend that in not having made full disclosure the appellant cannot be considered to be honest and Ameen and is, therefore, disqualified from running or being chosen as a member of the Provincial Assembly in terms of Articles 62, 63 and 119 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the immovable property mentioned by the appellant in his nomination paper is inherited property. The land in Khajot was in fact bought by the appellant's father in the appellant's name. As to Mehr Paper and Board (Pvt.) Ltd. reiterates his previous submissions.
6. 5.We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their assistance.
7. 6.We find that the impugned order has disqualified the appellant for the reasons mentioned in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has, however, been able to explain that the Prado was never in his use or name, therefore, we find that the finding of the learned Returning Officer in respect of concealment of the same is erroneous. Similarly is the position regarding the appellant's account in the Standard Chartered Bank. Insofar as the valuation of the Toyota Corolla Car or of the gold jewellary is concerned, non-disclosure of its value or incorrect valuation thereof is a matter of fact which cannot be resolved in these proceedings as they are summary in nature. Even otherwise, disclosure of ownership of these assets has been made. Similarly the learned counsel for the appellant has satisfactorily explained that there is no outstanding against the appellant insofar as the credit card is concerned. However, the factum of ownership of Mehr Paper and Board (Pvt.) Ltd. and the ownership of the land in Khajot are questions which have not been satisfactorily explained by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The company as pointed out by Miss Ambreen Nawaz Chaudhry, Advocate, co-counsel for respondent No.2, is still borne on the register of the SECP and is yet to be dissolved. The appellant was, therefore, required under the law to disclose that he owns the company even though if it was not conducting any business. As regardsthelandinKhajotwefindthatthesamewastransferred inthenameoftheappellantthroughMutationNo.417dated19-8-2006. From a perusal of the documents appended by the appellant with the appeal especially the affidavits of the appellant and his sister in respect of the ownership of the Prado it appears that the appellant's father died in or around the year 2005. The mutation in question is dated 19-8-2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land had been bought by the appellant's father in the appellant's name, therefore, it is inherited land, does not come to the aid of the appellant.
9. 7.The appellant has, therefore, not only misdeclared but has also concealed his assets. He has thus made a false statement/declaration on oath and is consequently disqualified from being chosen or elected as a member of the Provincial Assembly.
10. 8.Under the circumstances, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.