' AJMAL MIAN, J.---The above petitions are directed against the order dated 9-9-1993 passed by the Appellate Tribunal of Election Commission comprising three learned Judges of ,the Lahore High Court, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, constituted under section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in Election Appeals Nos.18 and 40 of 1993, filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 respectively against the order dated 2-9-1993 of the Returning Officer of PP-90 Gujranwala XIV, rejecting their objection to the nomination paper of the present petitioner allowing the same for the following reasons:-- "It is a fact publicly known that all Cooperative Societies including the Pasban Cooperative Society, of which the respondent was a Director, had been working like banks and receiving deposits by opening regular accounts. We, therefore, find no difficulty in observing that the Promotors, Directors and the shareholders of the Societies, including the one of which the respondent was a Director, were the trustees and Ameens of the deposits. The fact that Pasban Cooperative Society stopped functioning and the fact that it was declared undesirable, shows that the Directors and other shareholders had failed to discharge their responsibility of returning the deposits to their customers and thus had proved themselves to be unreliable trustees and Ghair Ameens.
' Sub-clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, reads as follows:- "(1) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and Ameen.
The conditions laid down for qualifications to contest election, in the above clause stands incorporated also in clause (f) of section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. Since the respondent had failed to discharge the responsibility of Ameen, he stands disqualified from contesting election to the Assembly. His nomination papers were, therefore, accepted unlawfully and wrongly."
2. The brief facts are that inter alia the petitioner filed nomination papers for contesting election from PP-90 Gujranwala-XIV. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 who had also filed their nomination papers filed objection to the petitioner's nomination papers on the ground that he was a Director of Pasban Cooperative Society, hereinafter referred to as the Society, which failed to return the amounts of the depositors and as a result of which in was declared as an Undesirable Society by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Punjab, under the Punjab Undersirable Cooperative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 (Act No, I of 1993), hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993. However, the above objection was overruled by the Returning Officer on the ground that he was not declared as defaulter by then. Respondents Nos.3 and 4, being aggrieved by the above order of the Returning Officer dated 2-9-1993, filed the above two appeals which were disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned order and the same were allowed for the above-quoted reasons.
3. In support of the above petitions, Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there was no material before the Tribunal to conclude that the petitioner was Ghair, Ameen.
4. We would not like to express our opinion on the question, whether there was any material before the Tribunal to record the above finding as the petitioner may have to agitate the above point in the form of an election petition after the election. The question before us is, as to whether it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is a discretionary matter. Besides the factum that in the case of Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary v. Javaid Hashmi and others PLD 1989 SC 396 the majority view is that election disputes which include rejection of nomination papers are amenable to jurisdiction of Election Tribunals and not amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction in view of Article 775 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Without relying upon the above judgment, we are of the view that these are not fit cases for grant of leave inter alia for the reason that the Tribunal found that the petitioner was not qualified to be elected or chosen as he did not possess the qualification contained in clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution read with clause (f) of section 99 of the Act being Ghair Ameen. It is an admitted position that the Society, of which the petitioner was one of the Directors, defaulted in repaying the deposits of the depositors. However, Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh has invited our attention to some of the papers filed through Paper Book No, II today to show that factually the Chairman of the Society had submitted a scheme to the Cooperative Judge under the Act for refunding of the deposits by disposing of the various assets mentioned in the application, which has been approved on 5-7-1993 by the learned Cooperative Judge. According to him, the petitioner was merely a sleeping director. In our view, the above question involves investigation of disputed questions of facts which are pre-eminently suitable to be adjudicated upon through an election petition and not through a Constitutional petition. We, therefore, decline leave to appeal in both the petitions.