' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against a common order dated 16-1-1997 passed by a Full Bench comprising three learned Judges of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.671 and 672 of 1997, filed by the petitioner against the order of the Election Tribunal, Punjab upon respondents Nos.3 and 4's appeals directing the deletion of the petitioner's name from the list of validly nominated candidates to Constituency No,NA-150, Rahimyar Khan IV and Constituency No,PP-240, Rahimyar Khan IX on the ground that he was not a fit person to be chosen as a member of the National or Provincial Assembly as he cannot be treated as a sagacious or righteous person, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed his nomination papers in respect of the above two constituencies, which were found in order by the concerned Returning Officers and, therefore, they were accepted. Against the above acceptance, respondent No,4, Hameed Ullah Bhatti, filed Appeal No,7 of 1996/BWP against the petitioner and one Mian Lateef, assailing inter alia the petitioner's acceptance of his nomination papers for Constituency NA-150, Rahimyar Khan. Whereas respondent No,3, Sardar Muhammad Azhar Leghari, filed Election Appeal No,1 of 1996 inter alia against the petitioner in respect of acceptance of his nomination papers for Constituency PP-240, Rahimyar Khan. It was alleged that the petitioner had mis-stated his educational qualification as Senior Cambridge and also mis-stated the value of the cotton ginning factory. The above appeals were contested by the petitioner, but the learned Election Tribunal, after recording evidence through the aforesaid judgment, held as under:-- "In this state of affair whether he can be treated as righteous or sagacious person, who wants to reach the National/Provincial Assembly to join the corridor of powers. Manifestly, he had given wrong facts about his educational career. He has given an incorrect valuation with regard to his and his spouse's assets; that he got his Cotton Ginning Factory valued by the Revenue Staff as worth one crore rupees but has given its, valuation to be 26 sacs rupees only in his nomination- papers. On these facts, we are not inclined to treat him as righteous or sagacious person within the terms of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. Furthermore he has demonstrated a visible sense of negligence in incorporating his credentials in the nomination-papers. He is, thus, not a fit person to be chosen as member of National .Or Provincial Assembly. We accordingly are of firm view that the learned Returning Officer fell in error in accepting his nomination-papers. We accordingly allow Election Appeals Nos.5 and 7 of 1996, set aside the order of learned Returning Officer in both cases and reject nomination-papers of Sardar Rafique Haider Khan Leghari as well. Necessary exercise shall be done by the concerned Returning Officer to delete the name of Sardar Rafique Haider Khan Leghari from the list of validly nominated candidates to both Constituencies No,NA-150, Rahimyar Khan IV and No,PP-240, Rahimyar Khan IX."
' Consequently, the above appeals were allowed in the above terms. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Writ Petitions Nos. 671 and 672 of 1997, which have been dismissed by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Along with the above petitions, applications for ad interim order for suspending the above impugned judgments and order and restoring the Returning Officer's order have been filed. The above applications were placed for Chamber orders yesterday before one of us (Ajmal Mian, J.) when the following order was passed:-- "I am not inclined to grant ad interim order. Let the notice of the petition and application be issued to the respondents and to Deputy Attorney-General and Advocate-General, Punjab for 22-1-1997 in Court."
4. In support of the above petitions Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, learned ASC for the petitioner, has urged as under:--
(i) That the judgment of the learned Election Tribunal is based on misreading of evidence on record and, therefore, the High Court failed to rectify the above jurisdictional defect by not pressing into service its Constitutional jurisdiction.
(ii) That in view of sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 14 of The Representation of the People Act, 1976 (Act No,LXXXV of 1976), hereinafter referred to as the Act, the petitioner's nomination papers could not have been rejected as the alleged defect was not substantial.
(iii) That on account of the material on record the learned Election Tribunal could not have held that the petitioner was not a sagacious and righteous person in terms of clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution.
' Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned Advocate-General, Punjab and Mirza Mansur-ur-Rehman learned Deputy Attorney-General, both on Court notice, have supported the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court.
' Dr. A. Basit, learned ASC appearing for respondent No,5 Raees Mehboob Ahmad, has urged that as admittedly the petitioner was not a Senior Cambridge and as he had shown the value of the cotton ginning factory as Rs,26 Lacs instead of Rupees one crore, the learned Election Tribunal was justified in passing the above impugned judgment. His further submission was that before the High Court, the petitioner had not pleaded that the judgment of the Election Tribunal was founded on misreading of evidence or that the loan figure of Rs, Ten crores was mentioned by mistake in place of Rupees one crore. He also urged that a person, who makes the above mis-statements, cannot be considered as a sagacious or righteous person.
5. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it may be pertinent to point out that a number of amendments have been incorporated in the Act by Ordinance No, CXII of 1996 inasmuch as subsection (2) of section 12 has been substituted by a new subsection and amendments in section 14 and other sections have been made. It seems that under the amended Act, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Act, a candidate has to make on solemn affirmation a statement in respect of the matters specified in sub-clauses (i) to (xi), Sub-clauses (vii) and (viii), which have direct bearing, read as under:-- "(vii) a statement specifying his educational qualifications, occupation, National Identity Card number and National Tax Number, if any; (viii)a statement of assets and liabilities of his own, spouse and dependents on the prescribed form as on the preceding thirtieth day of June;"
6. It may further be observed that section 14 of the Act relates to the scrutiny of the nomination papers. Subsection (3) thereof empowers the Returning Officer to conduct a summary enquiry either of his own motion or upon any objection and may reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that the candidate falls within the ambit of clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the above subsection.
The above subsection (3) reads as under:-- "(3) The Returning Officer may, either of his own motion or upon any objection, by any person referred to in subsection (1), conduct such summary enquiry as he may think fit and may reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that--
(a) the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a member;
(b) the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination paper;
(c) any provision of section 12 or section 13 has not been complied with or submits any false or incorrect declaration or statement in any material particular; or
(d) the signature of the proposer or the secondar is not genuine: Provided that---
(i) the rejection of a nomination paper shall not invalidate the nomination of a candidate by any other valid nomination paper;
(ii) the Returning Officer shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature and may allow any such defect to be remedied forthwith, including an error in regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate or his proposer or seconder so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll; and
(iii) the Returning Officer shall not enquire into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll."
7. It may further be observed that nomination form and other allied forms have been prescribed under Rule 3.
' It may be pertinent to mention that Article 62 of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he fulfills the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (i). It may be advantageous to reproduce clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution, which has been pressed into service by the Election Tribunal, and which reads as follows:--- "(1) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen;"
8. In furtherance of his above first submission Mr. Talib H. Rizvi has invited our attention to page 87 of the paper book, which contains the declaration of assets by the petitioner as a part of nomination paper, and which indicates that in the column of Immovable Property, one house at Sawatra village and one Cotton Ginning Factory at Sawatra, have been mentioned besides other immovable assets. Against the above two items, no valuation has been specified. It is also evident that in the column of Movable Assets, the petitioner declared Cotton Ginning, Rs,26 lacs, 1/4th share in the name of his son Arslan. It may be pointed out that under sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of subsection. (3) of section 14 of the Act, it has been provided that the Returning Officer .Shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of substantial nature and may allow any such defect to be removed forthwith including an error in regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate or his proposer or seconder so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll.
9. The above first and second contentions of Mr. Talib H. Razvi prima facie seem to have force i,e, the learned Election Tribunal has misread the above declaration by holding that the petitioner had declared the value of Cotton Ginning Factory as Rs,26 lacs and secondly that the defect of not mentioning the value against the Cotton Ginning Factory in the column of Movable Property was such, which could have been rectified on pointation in terms of sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 14 of the Act.
10. As regards the second mis-statement as to the educational qualification of the petitioner, Mr. Talib H. Rizvi has invited our attention to the statement recorded by the Election Tribunal, wherein he explained that he was in fact Matriculate and his Manager, who filled in his form, written as Senior Cambridge, which according to him, are equivalent for getting admission in a college for Graduation. His further submission was that this was not such an omission/commission of substantial nature, which could warrant rejection ;jf the petitioner's nomination paper.
11. The words "sagacious" and "righteous" employed in clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution have the following dictionary meanings (Oxford English Dictionary, Sixth Edition):- "sagacious (-shes) a. Mentally penetrating, gifted with discernment, having practical wisdom; acute-minded, shrewd; (of saying, plan, etc.) showing sagacity; (of animal) exceptionally intelligent, seeming to reason or deliberate;" "righteous" (ri'chus) a. (Of person, life, just, upright, virtuous, law-abiding; "
' According to Mr. Talib H.Rizvi, the above defect in the nomination paper does not render the petitioner as a person who is not sagacious or righteous keeping in view the definitions of the above terms.
12. Dr. A. Basit has invited our attention to the factum that the Election Tribunal in the impugned order has pointed out that though the value of the Cotton Ginning Factory was Rs, one crore but the petitioner obtained loan of Rs, Ten crore and, therefore, according to him, this is itself sufficient to make the petitioner a person not covered under clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution.
13. Mr. Talib H. Rizvi has invited our attention to the statement of the Assistant Commissioner, Sadiqabad, Muhammad Munir. He has given the valuation of the Cotton Ginning Factory as Rs, one crore and stated that the petitioner had availed of loan/limit from the concerned financial institutions. There is no figure of Rs, Ten crores. According to Mr. Rizvi, this is a typing mistake of the Election Tribunal that instead of Rs, one crore, Rs, ten crores have been typed.
14. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, as to whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the order of the learned Election Tribunal in view of the above factual and legal position. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The Returning Officer/Election Commission of Pakistan are directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the election of the above two Constituencies without prejudice to the contentions of the parties and the result of appeals arising out of the above two petitions. Somewhat similar interlocutory order was passed 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) before the hearing of the appeal, which was eventually allowed.
15. If the petitioner succeeds in the election of any one of the above Constituencies, the appeals arising out of the above petitions may be listed for hearing at an early date.