' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---Major (Retd.) Tariq Zia Chaudhry who is contesting election from PP-113 Narowal-II alongwith others, has challenged the order of the Returning Officer dated 1-9- 1993 whereby he had accepted the nomination papers of Amanullah Khan respondent, a candidate for the same seat. The grievance of the appellant is that in spite of the objection raised by him that Amanullah Khan is a registered contractor and had in hand a contract obtained from Public Health Engineering Department, Narowal Division, the learned Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers of the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon clause (n) of subsection (1A) of section 99 of the Representation of the Peoples Act (No,LXXXV of 1976), has sought to challenge the impugned order. In support of the pleas raised by him he has placed reliance upon Annexure C, a certificate issued by the Executive Engineer Public Health Department, Narowal whereby it has been authenticated that the respondent was a registered contractor of the said Department in category C. He has also placed reliance on Annexure D, a work order dated 8-6-1993 vide which he was allowed the contract for Rural Drainage Scheme, Manzoor Pur Plot (Group I). The said work was stipulated to be completed within 1-1/2 months. Learned counsel asserted that the respondent by now has not completed the work and the same is still in hand. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not challenged the averment of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was a registered 'C' category contractor with the Public Health Engineering Department. He also did not deny that the respondent was awarded the contract to construct Rural Drainage Scheme, Manzoor Pur Plot (Group I). However, he asserted that the said contract was completed within the stipulated period and he has no more work in hand. In support of the contention he has placed on record affidavit of the respondent. 1976 being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not debar a contractor, who does not have any work in hand. The same places embargo on person who has a subsisting interest in a contract, the work of which is still in progress. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent has interest in any other contract, the work of which is still incomplete.
' In the circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.