' The Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to call in question the order, dated 1- 3-2001 passed by respondent No,2 rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner, and order, dated 10-3-2001 passed by respondent No,1 affirming the order of the Returning Officer/respondent No,2.
2. The petitioner proceeded to Saudi Arabia for performance of Hajj on 27-1-2001 and before boarding for his departure, he appointed one Malik Shah Muhammad son of Abdul Karim as his attorney to file his nomination paper with the Returning Officer. The nomination paper of the petitioner was filed by his attorney for a seat of Councillor, Muslim (General). At the time of scrutiny, the Returning Officer vide his order dated 1-3-2001 had rejected the same on the ground that the nomination paper was not signed by the candidate himself. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the District Returning Officer/Appellate Authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the general attorney of the petitioner could validly sign the nomination paper of the petitioner under the authority conferred on him by the petitioner.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the relevant law. Rule 16 of the Punjab Local -Councils Elections Rules, 2000 contemplated that:
(1) The Returning Officer shall, as soon as may be, after the publication of election programme under rule 13, give a public notice in Form II inviting nominations and specifying the time before which and the place at which nomination papers shall be received by the Returning Officer.
(2) Any elector of an electoral ward may propose or second the name of any duly qualified person to be a candidate for becoming a member for that ward.
(3) Every nomination of a candidate for becoming (i) a member in a Union Council shall be made by a separate nomination paper in Form 111(A), which shall be signed by both the proposer and the seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made be signed by the candidate.
(ii) a Nazim and a Naib-Nazim of a Union Council, as joint candidates, shall be made by a separate nomination paper in Form III (B) and shall be signed by both the proposer and seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made, be signed by both the candidates contesting elections as joint candidates. (iii) A Nazim and a Naib-Nazim of a Zila Council or a Tehsil/Town Council, as joint candidates, shall be made by a separate nomination paper in Form III (C) and shall be signed by both the proposer and seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made be signed by both the candidates contesting as joint candidates.
(iv) Member of a Zila/Tehsil or Town Council against seats reserved for Women, Peasants and Workers and Minority Communities shall be made in a separate nomination paper in Form III (D) and shall be signed by both the proposer and seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation made be signed by the candidate.
(4) Every nomination paper shall be accompanied by a declaration of assets of the candidate in.
Form XIX, which shall be open to inspection by every voter of the local area concerned.
5. A bare reading of the above provisions of law would show that it is obligatory on a candidate for the membership in a Union Council, or Nazim or Naib-Nazim to sign the nomination paper, solemn affirmation made thereunder and also to submit a declaration of his assets.
6. The law has not provided that the nomination paper of a candidate would be signed by his attorney, nor the attorney can file the nomination paper before the Returning Officer. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 (supra) has further envisaged that: "Every nomination paper shall be delivered by the candidate or his proposer or his seconder to the Returning Officer who shall acknowledge the receipt of the nomination paper specifying the date and time of receipt."
' From the reading of the above provision of law, it is manifestly clear that the Legislature has not empowered the attorney of the candidate to deliver the nomination paper to the Returning Officer.
However, this authority has been given to the proposer or seconder of the candidate.
7. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have validly passed the orders impugned herein while rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders or that the impugned orders have been passed without lawful authority. The learned counsel has also not been able to persuade this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, this writ petition having no force is dismissed.