1. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.--- The petitioners through this petition have sought the following reliefs:--
(a) To declare that the impugned orders viz. Annexures "C" and "E-1", dated 5-3-2001 passed by Disrict Returning Officer are illegal, unlawful and against the Election Ordinance and Rules and be set aside/quashed.
(b) To grant injunction restraining the respondents Nos.1 and 2 by suspending the operation of impugned order, dated 5-3-2001 by not allowing the symbols of respondents Ghulam Raza and Abdul Sattar.
(c) Award cost of the petition.
(d) Any other relief may also be awarded as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstnaces.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed nomination forms for Nazim and Naib-Nazim respectively before the Returning Officer/Joint Civil Judge, Sukkur. The Returning Officer found the nomination papers valid and accepted the same. The respondent No.3 Ghulam Raza being aggrieved by the acceptance order filed an appeal before District Judge/District Returning Officer, Sukkur, who vide his order, dated 5-3-2001 accepted the appeal and rejected the form of petitioners on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 had failed to file his declaration of assets as required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of Local Government Elections Ordinance and the Rules, 2000.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 was not party in the appeal, therefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated. It is argued that the declaration Form was filed alongwith nomination paper but the same has been misplaced by the Lower Staff of Returning Officer. The sub-rule (4) of rule 16 is not mandatory and even if that is not complied with, the nomination paper of petitioner No.1 could not be rejected. The reliance has been placed upon Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Behgal and another AIR 1975 SC 266, Allah Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCM R 1863 and S.M Ilyas and another v. Karachi Building Control Authority through Chief Controller of Buildings and another PLD 2001 Kar. 85.
4. Mr. Khadim Hussain Mangi learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No.3 has contended that the impugned order passed by the District Returning Officer is proper and is based on valid and sound reasons.
5. Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, learned Additional Advocate-General has supported the impugned order and stated that no illegality has been committed by the District Returning Officer.
6. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
7. The perusal of material placed on record shows that petitioner No.1 submitted his nomination paper but he failed to submit his declaration form as required by sub-rule (4) of rule 16 of the Sindh Local Government Election Ordinance and the Rules, 2000. The arguments that the noncompliance of sub-rule (4) of rule 16 does not make the nomination papers invalid has no force as rule 18, sub-rule (3) reads as under:-- "18(3). The Returning Officer, may either suo motu or upon any objection, conduct such summary enquiry as he may think fit and reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that;
(i) the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a member.
8. (ii)the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination paper: (iii)any provision of rule 16 or rule 17 has not been complied with; or (iv)the signature or thumb impression of the proposer or the seconder is not genuine.
9. Provided that in case of rejection of the nomination of either a Nazim or a Naib-Nazim as joint candidates, the nomination as a whole for both the joint candidates shall stand rejected."
10. The plain reading of above quoted provision shows that non compliance of the provisions of rule 16 or 17 shall make the nomination paper liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer by even taking suo motu action. The learned counsel and the petitioner No.1 were present before the District Returning Officer and made a statement before him that they had produced the documents which were demanded from them by the Returning Officer: The original declaration of assets form was with them. This statement shows that the declaration form was not submitted. The declaration of assets of the candidate in form XIX as contained in sub-rule (4) of rule 16 is very essential as the said provision construed that declaration of assets is opened to inspection by every voter of the local area concerned. The case law submitted by the learned counsel has no relevance with the facts and circumstances of the instant case and is quite distinguishable.
11. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner No.1 was invalid and has rightly been rejected by the appellate Authority. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and needs no interference. The petition stands dismissed alongwith listed applications.