' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 13-1-1997 passed by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,597 of 1997, filed by the petitioner against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 27-12-1996 dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer, dismissing the same for the following reasons:- "A perusal of list of assets filed by the petitioner along with his nomination papers clearly shows that he had omitted a number of properties especially certain plots from the list. Be that as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon evidence, we are not inclined to enter into the factual controversy.
' Dismissed in limine."
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed his nomination paper for PP-145 Kasur. To his nomination paper, objection was raised by Jamshed Hussain Khokhar and Muhammad Din Ansari on three grounds, namely, that he owned a shop in Kasur, value bf which was shown as Rs,10,600, though the market value of the same was more than Rs, ten lacs; secondly, that the petitioner owned one acre plot at Shahbaz Khan Road, of which value was Rs, five lacs; and lastly, that the petitioner was a defaulter of the Punjab Bank. The learned Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on the following grounds:-- "4. The candidate has indicated to be a shareholder of 20% in Rizwan Textiles, 37-1/2% in Kasur Cizing and 2000 shares in Rizwan Weaving Ltd. He has not correctly mentioned the location of above said units in the nomination form besides declaration of assets attached with the application. The value of the shop at Railway Road, Kasur has been incorrectly shown as Rs,10,600 which is intentionally shown less. Rizwan Textiles has been shown as defaulter as per list of Election Commission of Pakistan to be of Rs,91,05,000. He is thus declared defaulter and has violated the provisions of section 24, subsection VI of Manual of Elections Rules, therefore nomination paper of the candidate is rejected."
' The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Election Tribunal, which dismissed the same as under:- "4. In order to verify the allegations we have sent for the Manager, Habib Bank, Mall Road Branch, Lahore, who has placed on record a statement of account (marked A) according to which the appellant owes a huge amount, which was advanced to him for export purposes but he availed finance facilities but did not export the goods as a result thereof repeatedly fines were imposed by State Bank upon his Firm. The Manager also deposed that the account is being operated by the appellant. The statement of property allegedly standing in the name of the appellant, his father, wife and daughters (statement placed on record and marked 'B') along with certified copies of the entries of revenue record. The appellant failed to rebut that he is not owner of Sabir Weaving, Sabir Spinning and Aswa r Tentage. This is not all. The Banking Tribunal decreed the suit against the appellant and his Firm. Thereafter writ was filed in this Court and during the pendency of the writ he agreed to clear the amount in monthly instalments of Rs,15 lacs each. This is incorporated in the order of this Court dated 12-8-1996 but subsequently suppressed this order and got the instalments reduced to 5.00 lacs from the Executing Court vide order dated 10-11-1996. Anybody who is a beneficiary of this order cannot call himself Ameen."
' After that, the petitioner approached the High Court through the above writ petition, which has been disposed of in the above terms. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Dr. A. Basit, learned ASC has appeared on behalf of Muhammad Din Ansari. He has also filed two paper books containing certain documents in support of his submission that the petitioner had not disclosed all his assets in his nomination paper.
4. It may be observed that Muhammad Din Ansari was not a party in the writ petition before the High Court, but he had filed an application for being impleaded, on which no order was passed. Be that as it may, we have allowed Dr. A.Basit to argue the case on his behalf. He will have the right to oppose appeal rising out of the above petition.
5. In support of the above petition Syed Jamshed Ali, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has urged as follows:-
(i) That the learned Election Tribunal misread the nomination paper of the petitioner by observing that correct location of Rizwan Textile Mills Ltd. And Rizwan Weaving Mills Ltd. Have not been mentioned;
(ii) That there was no evidence before the learned Election Tribunal to conclude that the value of the shop at Railway Road, Kasur, disclosed by the petitioner at Rs,I0,600 was incorrectly shown inasmuch as the above amount was the purchased price mentioned in the sale-deed;
(iii) That the Election Tribunal failed to take into consideration the order dated 10-11-1996 of the Chairman, Banking Tribunal-1V, Lahore, whereby it allowed Rizwan Textile Mills (in which the petitioner has 20% share) to pay the decretal amount in instalments at Rs, five lacs per month and the certificate of the bank that there was no default in the payment of the instalments;
(iv) That the learned Election Tribunal based its order on the grounds which were not found favour with the learned Returning Officer though the above grounds were not sustainable in law;
(v) That the High Court without naming any property has held that the petitioner failed to disclose all his properties. On the other hand, Dr. A. Basit, learned counsel for Muhammad Din Ansari, has contended as under-
(i) That since the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner was not qualified to contest the Provincial Assembly's election, it is not a fit case for interference with the above concurrent finding by this Court;
(ii) that the petitioner admittedly failed to disclose the loan of M/s. Habib Bank Limited;
(iii) that the to of properties at page 95 of the paper book does not reflect all the properties owned by the petitioner;
(iv) that in view of above omission on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be treated as Ameen in terms of clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution;
(v) that this Court should not adopt technical interpretation of section 12(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as it will frustrate the object of the relevant provisions;
(vi) that if the petitioner is allowed to contest the election, his client Muhammad Din Ansari will suffer irreparable injury.
' Dr. A. Bash has taken us through the paper book filed by the petitioner and the two paper books filed by Muhammad Din Ansari to demonstrate that the petitioner had not disclosed all his properties.
' On the other hand, Syed Jamshed Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made efforts to demonstrate that whatever properties were, owned by the petitioner, his wife, his minor son and his minor daughter were disclosed. His further submission was that objector is relying upon the properties which were already disposed of by the petitioner long time back.
6. In our view, it is not necessary to go into the above controversy at this stage as we intend to grant leave as indicated above. Leave is, accordingly, granted to consider the following questions:- -
(i) What is the object and scope of section 12(2)(iii) and (iv) of the Act?
(ii) Whether the rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner by the ' Returning Officer on the above grounds was founded on misreading of the material on record?
(iii) Whether it was open to the Election Tribunal to dismiss the petitioner's appeal on a ground which was not urged or found favour with the Returning Officer?
(iv) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the petitioner was not an Ameen as he had not disclosed all his properties without naming any of the properties, which were allegedly suppressed by the petitioner and without providing him= opportunity to rebut the same?
(v) Whether the facts of the present case warrant interference by this Court?
7. We had granted leave on 22-1-1997 in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.87 and 88/L of 1997 (Sardar Rafique Haider Khan Leghari v. Election Tribunal etc.) and had ordered that the petitioner in the said petitions be allowed to participate in the elections of the two constituencies involved without prejudice to the contentions of the parties and the result of the appeals arising out of the above two petitions by relying on the judgment in the case of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, N.A. 158, Naushero Feroze and others (1994 SCM R 1299).
8. We would pass similar order in the present case and direct the Returning Officer/Election Commission of Pakistan to allow the petitioner to participate in the election of the constituency involved subject to the above condition. In case the petitioner succeeds in the election, the appeal arising out of the above petition may be fixed at an early date. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.