This writ petition calls into question order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the election appeal filed by the petitioner against acceptance of the nomination papers of respondent No.4 from PP-126 Jhang-III.
2. Learned counsel stated that respondent No.4 was guilty of concealment of the assets of his wife, the FIRs registered against him, the National Tax Number and business in the nomination papers submitted by him. It was furthermore stated that respondent No.4 no doubt filed two applications before the Returning Officer :for rectifying the errors in regard to the assets of his wife (which applications were allowed), yet the error was of a substantial nature which could not be rectified. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 is a proclaimed offender and his name was included in the 4th Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 as well as learned counsel for Election Commission of Pakistan controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the business of real estate was not operational and was lying closed for a number of years.
4. It is an admitted fact that the objection application filed by the petitioner did not contain any allegation with regard to concealment of the assets of the petitioner's wife. This allegation was made by another objector in his objection application, who did not challenge the order of the Returning Officer by filing an election appeal.
5. Respondent No.4, in one of the applications, had alleged that neither he nor his wife was aware of the ownership of 05 Marla land constituted in Joint Salam Khata. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the Returning Officer did not commit any illegality in allowing the applications filed by the petitioner for rectifying the omission in the nomination papers for inclusion therein the assets of his wife in view of the clear language of section 62(9)(d)(ii) of the Elections Act, 2017.
6. The mere fact that the name of respondent No.4 was included in the 4th Schedule of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 is no ground for his disqualification. In this regard, reliance is placed on a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Election Appeal No.04 of 2016 titled Mazafar Abbas v. Mulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi and others (PLD 2017 Lah. 394).
7. In regard to the allegation that respondent No.4 concealed registration of FIRs against him in the affidavit filed pursuant to order dated 06.06.2018 passed in C.A. No.56-L of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, suffice it to state that the relevant clause in the affidavit requires information regarding pending cases of criminal offences. An FIR by its very nature cannot be termed as a pending criminal case. Respondent No.4 is, therefore, not guilty of mis-declaration for not mentioning the FIRs against him in the relevant column of affidavit.
8. It was also submitted that the petitioner left the Column No.J in the affidavit blank concerning his National Tax Number whereas the petitioner in his objection application clearly alleged that respondent No.3 was running the business of real estate in the name and style of Chaudhary Estate Agency' since 02.05.2008. In reply it was alleged that respondent No.3 filed his NTN number with the Returning Officer on 19.06.2018. The document produced by learned counsel for respondent No.4, however, shows that the Federal Board of Revenue tendered the tax details to the Returning Officer/Election Commission of Pakistan wherein the petitioner although having a National Tax Number was shown to be a non-filer. The omission to mention the National Tax Number per se has no material bearing on the fate of the nomination papers of respondent No.4 as he was a non-filer since 2015. This lends credence to the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that business of real estate had been closed since long.
9. No ground for interference is made out in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.