1. MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--- The petitioner who is a civil servant, by filing this petition, has challenged the disciplinary proceedings. However, on one of the dates the petitioner did not appear and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.11.1993. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 27.11.1993, On an application made by him the writ petition was restored on 30.11.1993, However, this petition in which the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet, has become infructuous in view of his dismissal from service.
2. Disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
3. [Lahore)
4. Present: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
5. TAUSEEF LIAQUAT and another Versus Malik KHADIM HUSSAIN and another Writ Petition No. 3842 of 2001, decided on 13th March, 2001.
6. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- --Art. 199--Contest of election to seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council--Late father of petitioner, Bank defaulter--Other son clearing liabilities of father--The impugned order on the face of it is without lawful authority--A reference may be made to PLD 1988 SC 68 wherein it was so held that a son of loanee cannot be proceeded against in person for the loan due against his late father--The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside--.
7. (Para 1)
8. For the Petitioner: Dr. Mohayyuddin Qazi, Advocate with petitioner in person.
9. For the Respondents: Jahangir A.A.G. On Court's call.
10. Date of hearing: 13th March, 2001.
11. MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J, -- Petitioners intending to contest election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No 26 (Haryawala, Gujrat) filed nomination papers which were scrutinised by the learned Returning Officer and allowed on 1.3 2001. No one raised objection to the nomination papers. However, the learned appellate authority, Gujrat constituted an appeal titled "ADEP Vs. Tausif Liaqat" and proceed to observe that since late father of-the petitioner was a defaulter and that other son of the said Liaqat namely Toqeer had cleared the liability of his father on 28.2.2001, hence petitioner No. 1 is disqualified to contest the elections. The impugned order on the face of it is without lawful authority. A reference may be made to PLD 1988 SC 68 A.D.B.P. Vs. Sanaullah Khan and another) wherein it was so held that a son of loanee cannot be proceeded against in person for the loan due against his late father. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.