' MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.-The nomination papers of Munawar Hussain Manj, respondent No,2 were accepted by the Returning Officer for NA.102, Sheikhupura-II vide his order dated 1-9-1993 and the written objections of Haji Nazir Ahmad Virk appellant were rejected by the Returning Officer. The appellant has challenged the order, dated 1-9-1993 mainly on the grounds that respondent No, 2 does not enjoy good character and is commonly known as a person who violates the Islamic Injunctions. The respondent is a defaulter within the contemplation of the recent amendments in Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act (No,LXXXV of 1976) with the result that he is ineligible for election. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent was detained under the maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 vide order dated 10-9-1991 of the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and as the allegations levelled therein were not shown to be incorrect, and as he has undergone the punishment under order dated 10-9-1991, he is disqualified, under Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well. He also referred to Annexure being a notice addressed by the Vice-President/Zonal Head, United Bank Ltd., Zonal Office, Sheikhupura to M/s. Khurshid & Compony through Mr. Munawar Hussain Manj, Faisalabad Road, Sheikhupura indicating that a sum of Rs,1.820 million is still outstanding against him which is overdue for adjustment and argued that the impugned order dated 1-9-1993 is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the written objections by the appellant, reply to the same by the respondent and the impugned order dated 1-9-1993. We find that the observation made by the learned Returning Officer in the impugned order to the effect that the list of defaulters furnished to the Returning Officer by the Chief Election Commissioner does not contain the name of Haji Munawar Hussain Manj, is correct.
The position that emerges is that the nomination papers of the respondent candidate were rightly accepted in so far as the objection taken on the basis of clause (iii) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 read with subsection (5) of section 12 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act (No,XIX of 1974), is concerned. The observation by the Returning Officer to the effect that the respondent had supported his reply to the objection petition of the appellant by appending a copy of the Partnership Deed to it indicating that there were as many as 19 partners in M/s. Khurshid & Company which shows that the said Company "allegedly managed by Haji Munawar Hussain Manj took a loan of Rs,300,000 which does not debar the said candidate to contest the election" has not been shown to be the result of any misreading of the relevant record by the learned Returning Officer.
3. As regards the incurring of disqualification by the respondent under Article 63 of the Constitution, suffice it to say that neither any conviction of respondent No, 2, was even so much as alleged by the appellant before the Returning Officer nor any other current disqualification has been alleged before us. It was rightly held by the learned Returning Officer that the order dated 10-9-1991 of the then District Magistrate Sheikhupura being an order of detention simpliciter cannot be considered as proof of the violation of the provisions of Article 63(i)(g) of the Constitution. Moreover, order dated 10-9-1991 is admittedly subject-matter of a challenge before the High Court at the instance of the respondent and the allegation levelled against him being sub judice, the learned Returning Officer rightly held the objection taken by the appellant against respondent No,2, as baseless.
4. In the absence of any material having been brought on the record by the appellant before the learned Returning Officer, by the time of acceptance of the nomination papers of respondent No,2, the presumption assumed by him in the impugned order to the effect that every person who claims himself to be a Muslim is to be considered as such, has not been rebutted.
5. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.