1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---Sh. Mushtaq Ali, a candidate from NA. 113, Okara-IV, as well as being a candidate from P.P. 159, Okara-VII, has challenged through Appeal No,30 of 1993, the acceptance of nomination papers of Mian Manzoor Ahmad Khan Wattoo, another candidate from the same seat vide order dated 1-9-1993, and has also challenged the acceptance of nomination papers of Mian Manzoor Ahmad Khan Wattoo from P.P. 159, Okara-VII, vide order dated 1-9-1993, through Appeal No,31 of 1993.
2. ' Acceptance of the nomination papers of Mian Manzoor Ahmad Khan Wattoo by both Returning Officers has been challenged on the following grounds:---
(a) that the respondent was disqualified for contesting election from the National Assembly as well as from the Provincial Assembly, as he was neither sagacious, nor righteous nor non-profligate and honest and Ameen as provided in clause (f) of Article 62;
(b) that he had been violating the integrity and independence of the judiciary of Pakistan and thus had incurred the disqualification as laid down in clause (g) of Article 62; and
(c) that he had been violating the provisions of sub-Article (1) of Article 149 and the provisions of Article 259 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
3. ' While elaborating the objections, the appellant contended that he had neither acted sagaciously, nor righteously nor honestly while working as Chief Minister and had shown disrespect to the judiciary by not taking effective measures to stop the rallies which used to raise anti-judiciary slogans during the hearing of the petition for dissolution of Provincial Assembly and by advising for the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly within seven minutes of the announcement of the judgment in the petition, filed against the first dissolution by Parvez Elahi against the Province of Punjab and others. In support of the contention, the appellant placed reliance on the clippings of different newspapers which contained the statements of the respondent and the conduct of the Punjab Goverment, which was being headed by the respondent.
4. ' The acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent has also been challenged on the ground, that the High Court had held him not to be a truthful person. In that regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court reported as Ch. Parvez Elahi v. Province of Punjab and another PLD 1993 Lah.
5. 595.
6. ' It was also averred during arguments that the family of the respondent including his father were Qadianis and so it can be assumed safely that he would not be looking to the interest of the Muslims at large as Qadianis were extremely unhappy and annoyed with the Muslims because of their having been declared non-Muslim and a minority. Reliance in that regard was placed on an Article written by Editor of `Laulak' Weekly', Faisalabad, dated 6-8-1993, (article appears at page 7 of the magazine).
7. ' Learned counsel appearing for respondent controverted all the objections and allegations and submitted that the appellant wrongly cited the judgment reported at page 595 of PLD 1993 Lahore, as the said judgment has been challenged through appeal before the Supreme Court and the same stands admitted and is pending disposal.
8. ' Learned counsel submitted that the reliance placed on the clippings of different newspapers was not a sound proof of the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent and that the respondent had neither done anything immoral nor had acted in any prejudicial manner nor had shown lack of respect for the judiciary. Learned counsel stated that the respondent had taken effective and legal measure to stop the rallies held during the hearing of the petition and that not only cases were registered against the demonstrators but arrests were also effected.
9. ' Learned counsel submitted that the clippings of the newspapers show that force was also used to disperse the rallies. While replying to the allegations levelled by the appellant towards the family of the respondent including his father, of being members of Quadiani sect, learned counsel submitted that such objection was never taken before the Returning Officer and so the same could not have been taken before this Tribunal.
10. ' As the grounds/objections taken against the acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent in both the appeals and the replies submitted by the counsel for the respondent in both the appeals were the same, they are being disposed of by a single order.
11. ' The appellant although on the first limb of the arguments had objected to the acceptance of the nomination papers on the ground that the father of the respondent and other members of his family were Qadianis but towards the end of his arguments he had opted not to press the same.
12. Apart from the fact that he had himself not pressed the argument, he had also not taken that objection before the Returning Officers for any of the constituencies. Still, another aspect, of the matter is, that the appellant never took up the objection that the respondent was also a Quadiani.
13. The objection, as such, does not hold water and the same stands excluded from consideration.
14. ' The appellant, who is also an Advocate by profession on being reminded that since the judgment of the High Court reported at page 595 of PLD 1993 Lah. 595, on which he had placed reliance to press into service the argument that the High Court had held the respondent not to be truthful person, had been challenged through appeal before the Supreme Court and the same stood admitted and was pending dicision, conceded that he cannot press the said fact into service for getting the impugned order set aside. The contention of the appellant that the respondent stood disqualified to contest election for any Assembly as he had failed to show respect to the judiciary as provided in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been considered by us in the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent held the judiciary in high esteem and never visualized even, any direspect to the judiciary and the claim made by the respondent that he had taken all legal measures to curb and stop the rallies which were held by disgruntled persons during the hearing of the Constitutional petition and the assertion made by him that not only cases were registered against the demonstrators but some of them were also arrested and force was also used to disperse them. As the appellant in support of the objections taken by him had only placed reliance on the clippings of the newspapers and not led any direct evidence, we do not consider it safe to hold the respondent disqualified from contesting election in view of clear rebuttal and the steps claimed to have been taken by him.
15. ' The appellant failed to bring any positive evidence on record to prove the allegation that the respondent exercised the executive authority of the Province in such a manner as to impede or prejudice the exercise of the Executive Authority by the Federation, so we are unable to hold that the respondent had violated the provision of sub-Article (1) of Article 149 of the Constitution.
16. ' The contention that the respondent had violated the provisions of Article 259 of the Constitution was based on the fact that the respondent had given plots to some public servants and cash prizes also to some of them to pay the price of said plots, as the said employees had been executing unlawful orders of the respondent, in our view, cannot be commented upon as the said facts have become sub judice after suo motu notice taken by a Single Judge of the High Court.
17. Covert and overt comments on such facts by this Tribunal which has to dispose of the matter in a summary manner, may affect the judicial determination of such facts which, of course, will be done through a remedy of wider scope.
18. ' The appellant had taken up the objection that the respondent had failed to abide by the oath which he had taken as a Speaker. Although in that regard he had alleged that instead of abiding by the oath, he had been looking to his personal interest but he had not mentioned any particular act on the basis of which it could be held that he had been looking to his personal interest.
19. ' The criticism of the conduct of the respondent in general for the events which happened during the months of April, May and June, in the political horizon were also considered by us in the light of the replies submitted by the counsel for the respondent.
20. ' We are of the view that as none of the political leaders of any of the parties who had taken active part in the events, that took place in April, May and June in the political field, was disqualified or estopped from participating in the election; it would not be just and fair to single out the respondent and estop him from contesting election.
21. ' For all the reasons noted above, we are not inclined to allow these appeals. Both of them are, therefore, dismissed.