' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---The nomination papers filed by the appellant for PP-145, Kasur-I were rejected by the Returning Officer vide order, dated 2-9-1993, on the ground that he was a defaulter per information supplied by the Banking Council through an authenticated list.
' Not. feeling satisfied, the appellant has challenged the order of the Returning Officer. There is no doubt that the appellant was the Director of the firm which had taken the loan and committed default in payment of the same within the stipulated period. None-the-less there is no proof that the appellant by himself or through his spouse or dependants owned 51% shares of the company.
In fact there is no assertion even. Actually we asked the counsel for the objector during arguments if he was in a position to produce any proof that the appellant, his spouse or dependant owned 51% shares of the company which has committed the default, he showed his inability to produce the same.
2. The interpretation of the newly added provision of sub-clause (ii) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 clearly appears to be that in the case of a default in payment of loan obtained by a company, the disqualification will cling only to a person, who by himself or through his spouse or dependants owned 51% shares of the company. That being so, the appellant cannot be held liable to have committed default in terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The nomination papers of the appellant shall be deemed to have been accepted.