NAIMA TULLAH PHULPOT O, J.---The petitioner , namely Muhammad Qasim Kandhro, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Islam ic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitutio n") challenging the order passed by learned Election Tribunal at Sukkur , dated 27.6.2018 in Election Appeal No,1 13 of 2018, whereby Appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.
2. Notices were issued against the respondents as well as learned D.A.G.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that respondent No,1 Syed Khurshed Ahmed Shah filed his nomination paper before Returning Officer NA-206 Sukkur-I for contesting the General Elections, 2018.
Returning Officer after scrutiny of paper vide his order dated 14.06.2018, accepted the nomination paper . Petitioner preferred appeal against the order of Returning Officer before learned Appellate Tribunal at Sukkur . After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Election Tribunal at Sukkur vide order dated 27.06.2018 dismissed the Election Appeal No,1 17 of 2018. Thereafter present Constitution Petition is filed by the petitioner .
4. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro counsel for petitioner has mainly argued that Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and objections raised were overruled.
It is also argued that learned Election Tribunal failed to appreciate the active concealment of the properties owned by respondent No,1 and spouse. It is also argued that respondent No,1 has shown Mst. Bibi Tallat and Mst. Gul Naz as his spouses .in Column No, 'D' of the affidavit but he has concealed assets in their names. Mr. Bhanbhro further argued that respondent No,1 has shown total land holding of 123 acres but failed to disclose land and plots situated in Aquwat Nagar Society Airport Road Sukkur , in the name of his wives. Lastly it is argued that orders passed by learned Election Tribunal are not sustainable under law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. Raza Rabbani counsel appearing for respondent No,1 has questioned the maintainability of the petition and argued that petitioner had not filed objections before the Returning Officer. He has further argued that in subsection
(2) of section 62 of the Elections Act, 2017 voter may file objections in writing but in this case objections were not filed by petitioner as such Mr. Rabbani contended that petitioner had no locus standi to file appeal. As regards to the contention of Mr. Bhanbhro that all properties have not been disclosed by the respondent No,1, Mr. Rabbani referred to the documents available on record and argued that all the landed property, plots and bungalows in his name and the in the name of his wives have been disclosed, documentary proof is available on record. It is also argued that nothing has been concealed by respondent No,1 who is Senior Politician. Lastly , it is argued that generally in election process High Court cannot interfere with by invoking its constitution jurisdiction in view of Article 225 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions reliance is placed upon cases of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional Sessions Judge, 1994 SCMR 1299 and Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi and others PLD 1989 SC 396 .
6. Learned Assistant Attorney General as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of Election Commission of Pakistan have supported the impugned orders and pointed out that all the arrangements for holding General Elections, 2018 have been completed by Election Commission of Pakistan.
7. We have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the releva nt record. In order to appreciate contentions of learned counsel for the parties, order of the Returning Officer dated 14-6-2018 is reproduced as under:-- "The candidate is present along with proposer and seconder . During scrutiny of nomination form of candidate Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, the objections have been raised by objector Shahban Ali Jatoi Notice was given to candidate, the objector made objection that candidate suppressed the name of dependents, declaration of 23.33% shares of spouse of candidate regarding. Denam Enterprises, the candidate availed facility of MNA lodge, the candidate having 2 acres and 07 ghuntas in deh Gosergi, however no authentic document has been submitted, the some documents placed with statement but said documents are without signature or stamp of authority concerned.
On scrutiny of nomination form, the documents found as per declaration in affidavit, therefore, nomination form accepted".
8. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case order of learned Tribunal dated 27-6-2018 is also reproduced as under:-- "Through instant appeal, the appellant who is objector before learned Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper has questioned the order of the learned Returning Officer where by the nomination form/paper of respondent No,5 has been accepted.
While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole objection against the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No,1 was that he has not declared his assets in his nomination form as well as in affidavit and also suppres sed the name of dependent of 23.33% shares of spouse of candidate regarding Denam Enterprising as well as no authentic documents has been filed in respect of lands.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara submits that the respondent No,1 has never made any concealment in the assets and liabilities and has properly shown the same in the declaration of nomination paper and in affidavit. He submits that respondent No,) has mentioned the details of 23.33% share of Bibi Talat in the assets of Messrs Denam Factory Enterprises who is independent tax payer . Even otherwise the appellant has failed to file objection before Returning Officer from 8-6-2018 to 14-6-2018 and the order of the Returning Officer is just and proper .
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Jatoi Assistant Attorney General and Khuda Dino Sangi supported the impugned order .
After hearing the arguments 1 have scanned the available record. Although the appellant has questioned that respondent No,1 has not shown the assets in his nomination form, however , counsel for respondent No,1 has mentioned in his counter -affidavit that respondent No,) has mentioned assets and liabilities in his nomination form and affidavit. Even otherwise the appellant has failed to file objections before Returning Officer from 8-6-2018 to 14-6-2018. In the existence position of affairs the instant appeal is dismissed."
9. From the perusal of the order passed by Returning Officer dated 14-6-2018, it is clear that objections were raised by one Shahban Ali Jatoi that respo ndent No,1 has suppressed shares of the spouse and landed property in his name. Learned Returning Officer held that no proof was submitted by the objector and at the time of scrutiny assets were found as per declaration in the affidavit. Learned Election Tribunal also came to the conclusion that assets and liabilities are mentioned in the nomination form as well as in affidavit. We have come to the conclusion that no material concealment or mis-sta tement in the nomination paper has been established. Even otherwise petitioner had failed to file objections before Returning Officer against nominat ion paper of respondent No.1.
Contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner are without any legal substanc e. It may be observed here that process for General Elections, 2018 is in progress, under Article 225 of the Constitution, this Court cannot interfere with the election process without any legal justification as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional Sessions Judge, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional Sessions Judge, 1994 SCMR 1299 and Election Commission of Pakistan v . Javaid Hashmi and others PLD 1989 SC 396 .
10. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, we have come to the conclusion that Election Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal and finding recorded by Election Tribunal requires to interference of this Court. This Constitutional Petition is without merit and same is dismissed along with listed application.