1. Through this petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, whereby appeal filed by petitioners was accepted and matter was sent back to the Returning Officer. The operative part of the judgment impugned through this petition is reproduced hereunder: In the above circumstances, it can be said that the Returning Officer has not done his job in accordance with law while not providing the actual form of statement of assets and liabilities to the candidates and due to said fault committed by the Returning Officer, no one can be punished. It is well settled principle of law that no one can be prejudiced or penalized by the act of Court/authority. In such like circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Returning Officer for rejection of nomination papers of all the appellants/candidates are unwarranted by law, therefore, all the abovercaptioned three appeals are Accepted, the impugned orders passed by the Returning Officer are set aside and all the matters are remitted back to the Returning Officer with a direction to provide form of statement of assets and liabilities as mentioned in Annexure "A" as per Form No. II(F) in accordance with law to all the candidates on 16.12.2016 at 10:30 a.m. and then the same will be submitted by all the appellants/ candidates on the same day tomorrow i.e. on 16.12.2016 till 2:30 P.M and then Returning Officer shall decide the nomination papers of all the appellants/candidates in accordance with law till 4:00 P.M on 16.12.2016. The District Election Commissioner, Rajanpur present in the Court is directed to furnish the requisite forms to the Returning Officer in accordance with law tomorrow at 9:00 A.M without fail. The Files of the nomination papers of all the appellants alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Returning Officer immediately whereas the record of the appeals be consigned to the record room in accordance with rules. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the District Election Commissioner, Rajanpur for information and compliance."
2. 2.Case of the petitioners is that appeal should have been accepted by accepting the nomination papers filed by them and the remand order is against the law.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the properties mentioned therein do not match with the properties mentioned in the nomination papers filed by them while contesting the election for the seat of Councilor in the instant election and further, they have not mentioned the liabilities as born out from their Form "A" appended with the nomination papers in the column of liabilities.
4. States that the Appellate Authority has noted that the properties mentioned at Sr. Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 16 of Form "A" were not mentioned at the time of filing of nomination papers for the seat of Councilor at the time of start of election. Submits that the properties have been procured after filing of the nomination papers for the seat of Councilor.
5. So far as non-mentioning of liabilities is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have mentioned that they have purchased the plots on installments which cannot be said to be a liability.
6. Prays that writ petition be accepted by setting aside the judgment passed by Appellate Authority and accepting the nomination papers filed by petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 4 assisted by learned counsel representing Election Commission of Pakistan argues that through the consolidated judgment, three cases have been decided and all the three appeals were allowed and parties were given fair opportunity to substantiate their entries in the nomination papers. Submits that thereafter, petition.ers have opted not to contact the Returning Officer, therefore, instant writ petition is not competent as again their nomination papers have been rejected.
7. States that if the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have procured the property after filing of nomination papers for the seat of Councilor in the instant election and before filing of the nomination papers in issue for the seat of Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kot Mithan is taken as gospel truth, same would not advance the plea of petitioners as they were given fair opportunity to substantiate the fact/assertion by providing documents before the Returning Officer. ,Further submits that there is an allegation of imposition of `tawaan' against Petitioner No. 1 for illegal cultivation of the State land for crop (Rabi-2016). While relying upon "Umar Ayub Khan versus Returning Office NA-19, N.-W.F.P., District Haripurl Additional District And Sessions Judge, Haripur and another" (2003 M LD 222), learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 4 argues that three appeals were rightly decided through a consolidated judgment.
8. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
9. 6.Petitioners were granted fair opportunities to file the form Annexure "A" and to substantiate their arguments that petitioners have procured the properties after filing of the nomination papers for which last date of submission of nomination papers was 07.10.2015 and the instant nomination papers have been filed on 09.12.2016. Petitioners had opted not to contact the Returning Officer, therefore, again their nomination papers stood rejected. The instant writ petition has been filed on 17.12.2016 whereas after remand, the nomination papers were to be scrutinized on 16.12.2016 on which date, their nomination papers have been rejected as per arguments of learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 4. The certified copies of the documents and impugned orders annexed with this writ petition were applied and issued on 15.12.2016.
10. 7.So far as question of liability is concerned, I do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 4 when as per petitioners, they have to pay installments for transfer of proprietary rights of the plots -purchased from the housing societies etc. If petitioners fail to deposit the installment in accordance with the schedule, the effect would be that he would not be given the said plot. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is liability against the petitioners for the purposes of matter in issue.
11. 8.Further, question of imposition of tawaan' has been introduced before this Court by producing a certified copy of "Mimi Tawaan'. The argument of learned counsel regarding imposition of `tawaan' is one sided. No notice has been given to the petitioners. Therefore, in my view, this argument cannot be used against the petitioners at this stage.
9. I am clear in my mind that for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has to show that the Court/forum below has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it or some jurisdictional defect has been committed in the impugned order. No such defect has been highlighted and further the matter in issue relates to factual inquiry. This Court cannot afford to go into factual inquiry.
12. 10.Pursuant to above, this writ petition being devoid of force stands dismissed in limine.