ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed an election petition against the respondents with the averments that the appellants and the respondents contested the election of Union Council No,82 of Sheikhum Tehsil, Pattoki, District Kasur for the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman wherein respondents Nos,1 and 2 were declared returned candidates; that respondents Nos,1 and 2 did not declare their assets correctly nor mentioned their correct valuation and procured their election results through illegal practices.
2. On receipt of summons, respondents Nos,1 and 2 filed their contesting written reply. Respondents Nos,3 to 6 filed conceding written reply whereas respondents Nos,7 and 8 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 04.03.2016. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: "ISSUES 1.Whether returning officer committed illegality while consolidating the results? OPP 2.Whether respondents Nos,1 and 2 did not declare their assets correctly while submitting nomination papers? OPP 3.Whether respondents No,1 and 2 committed illegal practices during the polling? OPP 4.Whether Election Petition has been filed with a mala fide intention and liable to be dismissed being baseless and frivolous? OPR"
3. Evidence led by the parties was recorded. Thereafter, learned Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition vide order dated 14.03.2017. Hence this election appeal has been filed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Before this Court, the appellants have emphasized only upon issue No,2 which pertains to incorrect declaration of assets by the respondents. He has relied upon the law laid down in cases titled Abdul Rasheed and another v. Election Appellate Authority and others (2016 SCMR 1215), Barkhurdar v. Appellate Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge and 3 others (PLD 2016 Lahore 101) and Syed Asghar Ali Shah v. Election Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ferozewala and 13 others (2004 MLD 1912). None of rest of the issues has been agitated, therefore, I will confine myself to Issue No,2 only.
6. According to the appellants, land measuring 5 kanal 16 marla and 51 kanal 8 marla was not declared by respondent No,1 which makes nomination paper of respondent No,1 as well as respondent No,2's being joint candidature invalid. Learned counsel for respondents Nos,1 and 2 submits that the said property was sold out by respondent No,1 to his brothers namely Jamshaid ul Hassan and Mudassar Zaheer through agreement to sell (Exh.RW-1/B) in 2002-03 and after receipt of consideration amount, handed over possession of the same to his brothers who are owners in possession of the property in question and respondent No,1 has no concern with the said property.
On query, he admits that the property still exists in the name of respondent No,1 but states in the same breathe that since the vendor and the vendees are real brothers and there is strong confidence and trust upon each other, the transfer of the property was neither demanded by the vendees nor done so by the vendor. He further submits that since respondent No,1 has no concern with the said property, he did not mention it in the nomination papers bonafidely. In support of his assertions, respondent No,1 produced his brothers before the court who supported the version of respondent No, 1 . There is no evidence in rebuttal by appellants' side contradicting the stance of respondent No, 1 . In the circumstances, the preponderance of evidence lies in favour of respondent No,1, therefore, it may be presumed that the land in question was sold out by respondent No,1 to his brothers as asserted by him.
7. Supposedly, the property in dispute is actually not sold by respondent No,1 and the same is still owned by respondent No,1 whereas Ex.h.RW 1/B is a fictitious document as alleged by the appellants. Under Rule 12(5) of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), each candidate is required to append a statement of assets and liabilities with regard to himself, his spouse and dependents, however, there is no penal clause in the Rules or in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (hereinafter called "the Act") suggesting any penal action to violators of the said rule. The only section which deals with qualification and disqualification of returned candidates is Section 27 of the Act which is reproduced below: "27. Qualifications and disqualifications for candidates and elected members.-- (1) A person shall qualify to be elected as a member or to hold an elected office of a local government, if he-- (a)is a citizen of Pakistan; (b)except the youth member, is not less than twenty five years of age on the last day fixed for filing the nomination papers; (c)is enrolled as a voter in the electoral rolls of the ward or the local government from which he is contesting the election.
(2) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, an elected member of a local government, if he-- (a)ceases to be citizen of Pakistan or acquires citizenship of a foreign State; (b)is declared by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (c)is an undischarged insolvent; (d)is in the service of Pakistan or of a local government; (e)is in the service of any statutory body or a body which is owned or controlled by the Government or a Provincial Government or the Federal Government or a local government or, in which any of such Government or local government has a controlling share or interest, except the holders of elected public office and part-time officials remunerated either by salary or fee; provided that in case of a person who has resigned or retired from any such service, a period of not less than two years has elapsed since his resignation or retirement; (f)is under an existing contract for work to be done or goods to be supplied to a local government or has otherwise any direct pecuniary interest in its affairs; (g)has been dismissed from public service on the grounds of misconduct unless a period of five years has elapsed since his dismissal; (h)has been removed or compulsorily retired from public service on the grounds of misconduct unless a period of three years has elapsed since his removal or compulsory retirement; (i)has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for a term not less than two years for an offence involving moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release; and (j)has been convicted for an offence involving activities prejudicial to the ideology, interest, security, unity, solidarity, peace and integrity of Pakistan unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release
(3) If a person-- (a)is found by the Election Commission to have contravened any provisions of subsections (1) or (2), he shall stand disqualified from being a candidate for election to any office of a local government for a period of four years; or (b)has been elected as a member of a local government and is found by the Election Commission to have contravened any provision of subsection (1) or (2), he shall cease forthwith to be an elected member or to hold the office of such member and shall stand disqualified from being a candidate for election to a local government for a period of four years.
(4) A candidate who claims to be a Muslim shall submit to the Returning Officer the declaration given in Ninth Schedule along with the nomination papers."
I have carefully gone through the above provisions of law. There is not a ground for disqualification of a returned candidate who, at the time of filing of nomination papers, does not declare the assets and liabilities. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that provision of Rule 12(5) of the Rules is just directory and not that of mandatory nature. Therefore, incorrect mentioning of assets and liabilities neither makes the nomination papers of a candidate invalid nor disqualifies such candidate. The judgment passed by learned Election Tribunal is quite in accordance with law.
The appellants have not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment. No interference is warranted. The case law relied upon by the appellants is distinguishable on facts and not attracted in the present case.
8. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no substance. The same is accordingly dismissed.