1. ' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.--The petitioners through this petition has sought following relief:-- -
(a) The petitioners above named respectfully prays that the nomination form of both the petitioners be restored as already accepted by Returning Officer, Taluka Nawabshah and the impugned order, dated 25-7-2001 may be declared null and void in the eye of law may be set aside.
(b) It is further prayed that after perusal of School Leaving Certificate, Mark Sheet and pass certificates of petitioner No,2, the petitioner may be allowed to proceed with Taluka Nawabshah, Local Government election and the due symbol for the voters may also be allowed as to the other candidates, so also to contest the above election on 2nd August, 2001 accordingly.
(c) Any other relief deemed fit and proper.
(d) The costs of the petition be borne by respondents. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the petitioners are that they filed their nomination forms for the seat of Nazim and Naib-Nazim of Taluka Nawabshah. The said forms were found to be valid and the same were accepted by Returning Officer/II Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah vide order, dated 21-7-2001.
2. ' The respondent No,2 challenged the said order and preferred appeal before the District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Nawabshsh on 24-7-2001. The learned District Returning Officer and District and Sessions Judge Nawabshsh allowed the appeal and rejected the nomination form of petitioner No,2 for NaibNazim. The said appeal was mainly allowed on the ground that the petitioner No,2 failed to produce his matriculation certificate, thus the requirement of section 14(e) of Sindh Local Government Ordinance and Rules 2000 were not fulfilled, therefore, he was not qualified to contest the election for the post of Naib-Nazim.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No,2 had cleared his matriculation examination under seat No,27066 from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad held in the month of June, 1969. It is argued that no proper opportunity was afforded to him by the appellate authority to produce the matriculation certificate issued by the competent authority. The rest of the points raised by the respondent No,2 before the District Returning Officer were found to be without substance and were rejected. The only point which weighed with the appellate authority was the non-production of matriculation certificate. It is pleaded that by now the certificate issued by Controller of Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, Sindh has been produced, and therefore, the nomination form of petitioners be accepted and they may be allowed to contest the election.
4. ' Mr. Jhamat Jethanand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No,2, has argued that the petitioner has not disclosed all his assets in the declaration form for the assets attached with nomination form. Therefore, violated the rules 16 and 17 of the election laws. It is argued that the list of moveable and immovable property disclosed in the declaration of assets form was incomplete. It was further argued that the petitioners were defaulters of Income Tax Department.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 supported the impugned order, dated 25-7-2001 passed by the learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Nawabshah. He has placed reliance upon the case of Syed Abu Zar Hussain Bukhari v. Returning Officer/Assistant Commissioner Pasroor and 2 others (2001 CLC 911).
6. ' Mr. Masood A. Noorani learned Additional A.-G. Has produced the original record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, Sindh, including the letter of Controller of Examination. He has conceded to the prayer made by the petitioners. In the parawise comments filed by Assistant Election Commissioner Nawabshah through learned Additional Advocate- General, it is stated that the petitioner No,2 had no academic qualifications and his nomination paper was rightly rejected. He has further stated that the election is to be held on 2-8-2001, and therefore, it will be impossible for the election authorities to re-print new ballot papers. He has prayed that petitioner No,2 is not entitled for the relief claimed by him.
7. The perusal of the impugned orders show that the nomination forms of petitioners were accepted by the Returning Officer, but the nomination form of petitioner No,2 Abdul Qayoom was mainly rejected on the ground that he failed to submit his matriculation certificate issued by proper authority. The remaining pleas urged before us were agitated by the respondent No,2 before the appellate authority and the same were already rejected. The respondent No,2 did not challenge the same before any forum. We in order to ascertain the genuineness of matriculation certificates directed the learned Additional A.-G. To call the original record from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, Sindh. The record was produced through Assistant Controller BISE Hyderabad which was submitted by the A.A.-G. In the Court. The copy thereof was supplied to the Advocate for the respondent No,2. We have examined the certificate of petitioner No, 2 which is duly stamped and signed by the Controller of Examination, which shows that the petitioner No,2 cleared his Matriculation Examination under Seat No,27066, held in the month of June, 1969. Thus, requirement of section 14(C) had been fulfilled and we sdee no reason to disqualify the petitioner No, 2 from contesting the election. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case and is distinguishable.
8. ' We had allowed the present petition by short order, dated 1-8-2001, and these are the detailed reasons for the same.