1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This petition for leave to apFat has arisen out of a local election to the Cantonment Board, Kohat. The petitioner had objected to the nomination of respondent No,3.
2. Two main charges which have been brought under discussion during the hearing of this petitioner were:--
(1) That the said respondent had kept an employee of the Cantonment Board at his residence as his domestic servant; and
(2) That he had helped a female student in getting scholarship which she might not have been granted otherwise. The objection was upheld by the Returning Officer but the High Court in its writ jurisdiction having found on fact that none of the two charges stood established and that they were mere allegations set aside the order of the Returning Officer, with the following operative remand order:- "The petitioner succeeds in his petition and the orders of respondent No,2 (Returning Officer) and respondent No,1 (President) of Cantonment Board, Kohat, dated 7-12-1991 and 11-12-1991 respectively are quashed and the Returning Officer is to decide about the nomination papers of the petitioner and respondent No,3 in accordance with the discussion above and the law."
3. Learned counsel argued both the points of law regarding maintainability of the writ petition; as also, on merits. We heard the learned counsel at length on the merits of the two allegations made in against the contesting respondent. He has relied on some proceedings regarding the first allegation which were decided after the rejection of respondent's nomination papers. Obviously that could not be utilised as determinative material for the Returning Officer who, as correctly held by the High Court, acted more on the allegations than on estbalished facts.
4. ' Regarding the second allegation learned counsel argued that grant of scholarship to female student was in contravention of certain conditions regarding the qualifications of the applicant for such scholarship. When we wanted to examine those conditions in detail so as to discover; whether, in fact she was allowed the scholarship against any law or rule learned counsel could not assist us in this behalf. Moreover, the main contention from the petitioner's side being that the respondent No,3 had not acted as an Ameen, has not been estbalished with regard to the second allegation. Inasmuch as neither any rule or law has been relied upon to show that any trust was not discharged in accordance with law or that the grant of scholarship to the female student was against any moral rule applicable to Muslim, vis-a-vis, the alleged help of the appellant to a female student for purpose of the advancement of her education.
5. ' Learned counsel had to agree that there was no immoral element in these allegations.
6. ' As the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us on the question of the merits of two allegations brought under discussion during the arguments, we find no force in this petition and dismiss the same without feeling any need for examination of the other question -- as it has not been found a fit case otherwise for grant of leave to appeal.