The petitioners feel aggrieved of the acceptance of nomination papers filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 to contest the elections of seats of Nazim and Naib-Nazim in U.C. No.75, Wadala Sandhuan, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. The objection of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 who is a candidate for the.Seat of Nazim is an enrolled member of the Daska Bar Association and is practising as an Advocate, whereas he has not passed his LL.B. Examination and has forged result card of Part I, Part II and Part III of the said examination showing him to have passed the same.
Respondent No.3 in fact never appeared in the LL.B., Part I Examination. Upon inquiry made by the Punjab Bar Council the University of Punjab reported that the result card of the said three examinations of respondent No.3 are bogus. Notices were 'issued and the private respondents are present with their learned counsel.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said respondent No.3 who has forged his LL.B. Result cards and on the basis thereof has obtained a licence from the Bar Council to practise and also got himself enrolled in the Daska Bar Association is not a person qualified under the law to contest the elections.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, contends that his client has not claimed to be a law graduate. He has declared his qualification to be Matriculation in his nomination forms and that it is the petitioners or some other opponents of respondent No.3 who have managed to file the said documents with the Punjab Bar Council and have got issued to his client a licence to practise.
4. I have gone through the record produced by the Secretary, Punjab Bar Council. I find that respondent No.3 applied on 7-12-1999 to be enrolled as an Advocate: According to this document he passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1988 and his LL.B. Examination in the year 1997.
Alongwith the form Ch. M. Iqbal Sandhu, Advocate, Daska filed a certificate of training declaring that the respondent No.3 had training with him. The application is accompanied by a copy of a Notification of the University of Punjab declaring the respondent No.3 to have appeared from Muhammad A.I Jinnah Law College, Gujranwala to have passed LL.B., Part III Examination (1st Annual, 1997) obtaining 318 marks. The application is also accompanied with a certificate issued by the B.I.S.E., Gujranwala to the effect that he passed his Matriculation Examination (Spring, 1998).
Then there is a passed result intimation showing that he has passed his B.A. Annual Examination (1992). Then there are certificates issued by Ch. Nishat Gumman, Advocate, Daska and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Kamboh, Advocate, Gujranwala declaring that he is fit to .Be enrolled as an Advocate. There is also a list of 20 cases wherein he has assisted his Senior and then there are the requisite affidavits sworn by him. There is also a provisional certificate issued by the Principal Muhammad A.I Jinnah Law College, Gujranwala declaring that respondent No.3 had remained in the said College from 1994-95 to 1996-97 and has passed his examination. He was examined by Mr. Hakam Qureshi and Mian Abdul Quddus, Advocates, learned Members of the Punjab Bar Council who passed him. There is a recommendation by the Enrolment Committee comprising Mrs. Imrana Baluch, Advocate, Mian Abdul Quddus, Advocate and his Lordship Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Chairman declaring that he be admitted as an Advocate. There are receipts for deposit of requisite charges alongwith a copy of his N.I.C. And a copy of a certificate showing that he is entitled to practise during the year 1997 and this licence was renewed thereafter.
5. I also, find an application, dated 8-3-2001 by the petitioners complaining to the Chairman, Anti- Corruption Committee, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore that respondent No.3 is proclaiming to be an Advocate and that his LL.B. Results be got verified. The Secretary, Bar Council sought information from the Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and it was reported that respondent No.3 had not passed any of the said three examinations and that the result cards are bogus.
6. I also find an application by respondent No.3 in the record wherein he has stated that he has in fact not passed any LL.B. Examination but his opponents had got entered the documents in the Bar Council. Alongwith the writ petition I find a certificate issued by the President, Daska Bar Association to state that licence No. Of respondent No.3 is 2859-255, dated 7-12-1999 and that he is a member of the Bar Association and he polled his vote in the Bar Elections for the year 2001-2002 and that he is a practising Advocate at Daska.
7. Respondent No.3 and his learned counsel were confronted with the said material available in the file of the Punjab Bar Council and the file of this writ petition. They insisted that their opponents have managed the said record.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 relies on the case of Raja Muhammad Afzal v, Ch. Altaf Hussain 1986 SCM R 1736 to argue that. Mere allegations cannot be made the basis for disqualifying a person from contesting the elections under the law. Further contends that the character of his client cannot be attacked on the basis of the said allegations.
9. I have gone through the said judgment. To my mind the case in hand stands on a different footing than the facts involved in the said judgment of the apex Court. In fact in my humble opinion, the present case presents a proposition in reverse in juxtaposition to the proposition involved in the said case. The reason being that it is not a case where the petitioners are alleging that the respondent is practising as an Advocate on a licence issued to him on the basis of forged documents and he is denying the allegation. On the other hand, the case is that it is respondent No.3 who is alleging that it is the petitioners or some unknown opponents who have managed to fabricate the entire record of Punjab Bar Council referred to by me above. It is this allegation of the respondent which is being denied by the petitioners. Now I have referred in detail to the record of the Punjab Bar Council. It is a consistent record starting from 23-4-1997 and then proceeding in a regular manner till date It is not the case of the respondent that there is some long-standing enmity or opposition with the petitioner party. The law under which the present elections are taking place was enforced in October, 2000. With reference to the said record I do not find it possible for the petitioners or for that matter for any one to have fabricated the same particularly the decision of the Enrolment Committee taken on 7-12-1999 admitting the respondent No.3 as an Advocate.
Now here is a person who is himself stating that he has not passed LL.B. Examination at page 1767 of the said report:--
(i) The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an individual person, the general result of one's distinguishing attributes" (14 CJS 398);
(ii) character is the 'actual moral' or physical disposition or sum of 8 traits and is to be distinguished from reputation or any other source of evidencing character (Wigmore, on Evidence, section 52, Vol. 1);
(iii) the word 'character' includes both reputation and 'disposition (explanation to section 55 of Evidence Act)."
The act of the said respondent in applying for enrolment as an Advocate representing that he has passed his LL.B. Examination and then pursuing the course for a period of time and after having obtained the requisite certificate to have practised as an Advocate (power of attorney Annexure "G" refers). In fact I find that this power of attorney was filed in a case before the learned D.R.O.; Sialkot on 8-3-2001, does tend to reflect upon the character of respondent No. 3 and the act of continuous false representation is to my mind violation of Islamic Injunctions as well. In this view of the matter I find that respondent No.3 lacks the qualification mentioned in section 14(d) of Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 enabling him to contest these elections. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.3 an consequently of respondent No.4 are set aside. No orders as to costs.