' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question order dated 7-1-1997 passed by the Election Tribunal constituted under section 14 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 to hear appeals against the decision of the Returning Officer, accepting or rejecting the nomination as the case may be.
2. The nomination papers of the petitioner Arshad Imran Sulehri was objected to before the Returning Officer by respondent No,3 Muhammad Latif Mughal. His objections were, however, overruled by the Returning Officer who accepted the nomination of the petitioner vide his Order dated 28-12-1996 whereupon respondent No,3 took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal comprising of two learned Judges of this Court which was pleased to set aside the order of the Returning Officer upholding the objections of respondent No,3 and rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not an Amin and has not paid his dues and taxes. This is order dated 7-1-1997.
3. Mr.Iftikhar Ahmad Mian, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of Tribunal was wholly without jurisdiction as the appeal before it by respondent No,3 was incompetent. It was elaborated that under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 an appeal can only be filed by a candidate and none else has a right to maintain it.
4. In reply Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan and Khan A. Hamid Advocates have argued that by an amendment made in the Representation of the People Act by Ordinance No,XII of 1996 a voter of the constituency has been granted right to raise objections to the nomination papers of the candidate and as such if those objections were rejected by the Returning Officer the objector could appeal against that order.
5. Section 14(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 reads as follows: "A candidate may prefer an appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or, as the case may be, accepting the nomination paper of the candidate to the Tribunal constituted for the constituency to which the nomination relates and consisting of not less than two nor more than three Judges of the High Court nominated by the Commissioner, with the approval of the President; and as such appeal shall be summarily decided within such time as may be notified by the Commission and any order passed thereon shall be final."
' Provided .. ....
' On a plain wording the said provision granted right of appeal only to a candidate against the order of the Returning Officer rejecting or accepting the nomination papers. A candidate according to section 2(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 means a person who has been proposed as a candidate for, or seeking election as a Member. Admittedly Muhammad Latif Mughal respondent No,3 was not a candidate to the election nor had he filed any nomination papers.
6. It is true, as has been contended by Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Advocate that by virtue of amendment made in section 14(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 a voter was granted right to raise objections to the nomination papers of a candidate though under the previous law the objections could only be raised by a candidate. This, however, does not in any manner improve the case of respondent No,3 as there was no corresponding amendment in section 14(5). If the legislature had intended that the voter whose objections have been rejected by the Returning Officer should also be allowed to approach the Appellate Tribunal, it would have done so by amending section 14(5) of the Ordinance which relates to appeal against the order of Returning Officer. Moreover, it is not disputed that right to appeal must be expressly conferred and cannot be implied. That being so, the appeal of respondent No,3 was clearly incompetent and the Tribunal could not have assumed the jurisdiction of such an appeal.
7. We are aware that under Civil Procedure Code any aggrieved person has a right to file an appeal, but that principle applies to cases where the law does not restrict the right of appeal to an aggrieved person or to a certain category thereof. Under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code an appeal can be filed by any person who need not be a party to the case though under section 15 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 an appeal can only be filed by a party to the proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in Mistri Allah Din v. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 1991 SC 52.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the maintainability of this petition in view of laved Hashmi's case PLD 1989 SC 396. A Full Bench of this Court after considering the ratio in the aforesaid case and other judgments rendered by the august Supreme Court has already in Sardar M. Jamal Khan Leghari v. Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khan Khosa PLD 1997 Lah. 250 held that where the impugned order of the Tribunal or Returning Officer is wholly void or without jurisdiction Constitutional petition can be maintained.
' In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 7-1-1997 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' No order as to costs. 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.