QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.-- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above - mentioned two connected petitions for leave to appeal 'arising from two identical Writ Petitions bearing No. 10718/2001 and 10719/2001 which were allowed on 20.6.2001 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and the orders of the Returning Officer and the District Returning Officer with regard to rejection of nomination papers of the private respondents were declared as without lawful authority.
2. The private respondents, who are related inter se and belong to one and the same faction, had filed two sets of nomination papers to contest election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim for Union Council 107 District Sheikhupura. The nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that income tax amounting to Rs. 350779/- was outstanding against the candidates for the seat of Nazim who are real brothers. Both the candidates filed appeals before the District Returning Officer but the same were rejected on the ground that although the order in regard to assessm ent of income tax had been set aside and the case remanded by the appellate Income Tax Commissioner yet according to the information in writing furnished directly by WAPDA the appellants had not cleared detection bill of Rs. 1613164/- and the running bill of Rs. 273800/- in respect of their industrial unit called Dewan Ice Factory. However, the writ petitions filed by both the candidates, namely, Sardar Muhammad Abbad Dogar and Sardar Muhammad Ilyas Dogar were accepted by the High Court, the orders of the Returning Officer as well as. The District Returning Officer were set aside being without lawful authority and the Returning Officer was directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
3. While allowing the writ petitions the learned Judge in Chambers observed as follows:-- "I find that Annex-F is copy of an agreement whereby the said factory was leased out by petitioner No. 1 to said Syed Anwar Hussain for the period 22.4.2000 to 22.4.2001. There may have been force in the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 as the document is private one and possibility of its fabrication could not have been entirely ruled out. However, I find that WAPDA Authorities themselves got a case registered vide FIR No. 529/2000 at Police Station Khanka Dogran, on 13.12.2000 under the relevant provisions of Electricity Act and PPC naming the said Syed Anwar Hussain Shah as an accused/consumer who had committed the theft of electricity. Apart from this I also find that Writ Petition No. 101/2001 was filed by the said Syed Anwar Hussain Shah which came up before this Court on 10.4.2001 and was disposed of with the direction to the Electric Inspector to decide the matter. There latter documents, to may mind should be enough to set at rest doubts being expressed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 regarding the authenticity of the said document supporting the plea of the petitioners that at the relevant time the premises was in possession of the said Syed Anwar Hussain Shah. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the matter has not still been decided by. The Electric Inspector. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is unable to controvert the said statement of learned counsel for the petitioners.
In this state of things it cannot be said that petitioner No. 1 stands adjudged as wilful defaulter as held by the learned DRO in his impugned order."
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and examined the record. The controversy is, rather intricate, therefore, we are not inclined to recapitulate and discuss threadbare the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and give authoritative findings lest the case of the petitioner is prejudiced before the Election Tribunal in case the respondents are declared elected and their election is challenged through an election petition. For the present purpose suffice it to say that the respondents prima facie appear to be qualified to contest the forthcoming election, therefore, the impugned judgments do not warrant interference.
With these observations both the petitions are dismissed an .