JAWAD HASSAN, J. Jamal Nasir Cheema has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") with prayer to set aside the judgment dated 08.01.2024 (the "Impugned Judgment") passed by the Election Appellate Tribunal (the "Tribunal") as well as order dated 30.12.2023 (the "Impugned Order") passed by the Returning Officer/Respondent No.3, whereby his nomination papers were rejected.
A. BRIEF FACTS
2. In order to contest election, the Petitioner filed his nomination papers from PP-59, Gujranwala-I as per schedule of The Election Commission of Pakistan (the "ECP") which were rejected by the Respondent No.3. Being dissatisfied from orders of Returning Officer, the Petitioner filed Election Appeal No.449 of 2024 before the "Tribunal" which was dismissed vide the "Impugned Judgment", hence this petition.
B. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia argued that the "Impugned Judgment" and the "Impugned Orders" are illegal and unconstitutional; that the nomination papers of the Petitioner have been rejected beyond the mandate of Articles 62 and 63 of the "Constitution" and these provisions of law have not been taken into consideration by the "Tribunal" and the Respondent No.3.
C. RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-ECP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the "Impugned Judgment" and the "Impugned Order" have been passed strictly in accordance with law, therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Bench.
5. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
D. DETERMINATION BY THE BENCH
6. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to discuss the scope for interference in the "Impugned Judgment" passed by the "Tribunal". The scope of judicial review of the High Court under Article 199 of the "Constitution" in election matter is confined to the extent of an order passed by election authority unlawfully or it is coram non judice or mala fide and such scope cannot be enlarged to the cases relating to factual inquiry or in the cases in which another view of the matter was also possible and if such view would have been taken it would not be illegal or unconstitutional. Reliance in this regard is placed on "Let. Gen. (R) Salahuddin Tirmizi v. Election Commission of Pakistan" (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 735) wherein it was held that "the High Court is also not supposed to substitute its opinion on the question of fact with the opinion formed by election authority or a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction". The minute examination of the "Impugned Judgment" and the "Impugned Order" reveal that the "Tribunal" has duly taken into consideration all the grounds taken by the Petitioner which even otherwise are based on finding of facts, after detailed discussion, deliberation and correct interpretation of provisions of the "Act" and the "Constitution".
7. In this view of the matter, we fully agree with the findings of the "Tribunal" and the Returning Officer and do not see any illegality or perversity in the "Impugned Judgment" and the "Impugned Order" which have been passed strictly in accordance with law, as such do not warrant any interference by us. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.