' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners have called in question the decisions of the Returning-Officer/ respondent No,5 accepting the nomination forms of the respondents Nos.7 to 10 for the reserved seats of Town Committee Tando Bago and sought for rejection of their mination forms.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent No,5 without proper scrutiny accepted the nomination forms of the respondents Nos.7 to 10, who per him, did not qualify to contest the elections for the reserved seats of Town Committee Tando Bago and as such, the decisions for accepting the nomination forms of respondents Nos.7 to 10 by the respondent No,5, are illegal and void, he, therefore, prays for rejection of nomination forms of respondents Nos.7 to 10.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material available on record.
4. The schedule appended with the petition provides the dates and process of nomination forms, their scrutiny and appeals against the decisions of Returning Officer of accepting/rejecting nomination forms of candidates contesting elections for reserved seats of Town Committee Tando Bago, which reads as under:- S.NOACTIVITY DATE
1. Public Notice to be issued by the returning Officers on18.01.2016
2. Filing of Nomination papers with the returning Officers by the Candidates20.01.2016 to 21.01.2016
3. Scrutiny of nomination papers by the Returning Officers.22.01.2016 to 23.01.2016
4. Last date for filing of appeals against decisions of the Returning Officers (accepting/rejecting the nomination papers)25.01.2016
5. Last date for deciding appeals by appellate authorities.27.01.2016
6. Last date for withdrawal of candidature28.01.2016
7. Publication of revised list of candidates along with symbols28.01.2016
8. Poll day for indirect Seat of District Councils, Municipal Corporations, District Municipal Corporation and Metropolitan Corporation.08.02.2016
9. Poll day for indirect Seats of Union Councils, Union Committees, Town Committees and Municipal committees.14.02.2016
5. In paragraph No,7 of the petition, it is admitted that according to the schedule of election for reserved seats, the last date for filing appeal before the respondent No,4 was 25.01.2016. It is further averred that the petitioners had received Form-VI, issued by the respondent No,5 on the last date of filing the appeals viz. 25.01.2016.
6. On a query, as to how this petition is entertainable by this Court, bypassing the remedy of appeal before the respondent No,4 against the decisions of respondent No,5 accepting the nomination forms of respondents Nos.7 to 10, the learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that as the Forms-VI accepting nomination Forms of respondents Nos.7 to 10 were received by the petitioners on 25.01.2016, i.e on the last date of filing the appeals, hence the petitioners instead of filing appeals before the respondent No,4, have filed this petition, which per him, is entertainable.
7. Admittedly, the last date for filing the appeals against the decisions of Returning Officers accepting/rejecting the nomination papers was 25.1.2016 and the date for deciding the appeals by the appellate authority was 27.01.2016, as is evident from the aforementioned schedule of elections appended with the petition by the petitioners. It is also an admitted position that the petitioners had received forms-VI showing acceptance of nomination papers of the respondents Nos.7 to 10 by the respondent No,5, on 25.01.2016 which was the last date of filing the appeals and thus, the petitioners could have availed the remedy by filing appeals against the decision of accepting nomination papers of respondents Nos.7 to 10 by the respondent No,5 before the respondent No,4 on the same date and/or on the following day viz 26.01.2016 with their explanation as the date for deciding appeals was 27.01.2016 A as discussed above.
8. It would be pertinent to mention here that the scheme of filing nomination forms, their scrutiny and appeals against the decisions of acceptance or rejection of nomination forms is regulated by Sindh Local Council (Election Rules) framed under the provisions of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013.
9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition is maintainable as the petitioners did not have any alternate remedy. With respect to him, this contention is misconceived. Having no remedy at all is certainly different from having failed in availing the proper remedy in accordance with law. As observed above, the petitioners admittedly had the proper remedy in the instant case, but they, for the reasons best known to them, failed to avail the same in accordance with law. It is well settled that Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, can be invoked only when there is no other remedy in the law or when the remedy(ies) available have been availed and exhausted in accordance with law, B therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Accordingly, the present petition being not maintainable, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
' Resultantly, M.A. No, 1863/2016 having become infructuous is also dismissed.