The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner submitted his Nomination Papers to contest the election for the Provincial Assembly from PP-273, District Bahawalpur, before the concerned Returning Officer on 24-8-2002. Maqbool Ahmad, contesting candidate raised objection before the Returning Officer that the petitioner is a defaulter and a decree for an amount of Rs,15,88,945 was passed against him in a suit No,730/1997 and another decree pertaining to Suit No,145/1999 for a sum of Rs,30,14,689 in favour of National Bank of Pakistan stands against him. The aforesaid objection was accepted and the Nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected by the Returning Officer vide impugned order dated 29-8-2002. The petitioner, being aggrieved filed an appeal under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 read with Rule 5 of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 before the Election Tribunal. The learned Election Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 10-9-2002, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Returning Officer as well as the Election Tribunal erred in law to reject the Nomination papers of the petitioner without adverting to the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No,7 of 2002) which overrides other laws. He further submits that learned Tribunal erred in law to rely upon section 8D(2)(o) as the ingredients of aforesaid provision are not attracted in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has not secured any in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any dependent. He further submits that declaration prescribed under section 12(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act. 1976 could not have gone beyond the para meters/requirements of section 8D(2)(o) of the said Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002. He further urges that the ingredients of section 99(1A) (s) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are not attracted in the present case as the business concern is not mainly owned by the petitioner but this fact was not considered in its true perspective by the Tribunals bellows. He further submits that learned Tribunal below incorrectly held that Rao Associates (Pvt.) Limited is a family concern. The Rao Associates (Pvt.) Limited consists of following persons:--
(i) Rao Ilyas Ahmad, Chief Executive,
(ii) Rao Tariq Mehmood, Director,
(iii) Rao Muhammad Salim, Director,
(iv) Nazir Ahmad, Director.
(v) Gohar Azim Director. The Chief Executive and the two first two directors are father and sons whereas the remaining two directors are not related to the Chief Executive and the other two directors, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal below that the Rao Associates (Pvt.) Limited is a family concern is against the record.
He further submits that decrees are passed against the Rao Associates (Pvt.) Limited jointly and severally and the status of the petitioner is of a guarantor, therefore, both the tribunals below erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner in violation of the dictum laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, relied upon Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi's case (1994 SCM R 1299). He further submits that non-mentioning of liabilities in the nomination papers is of no consequence under the law, that tribunals below wrongly decided the case against the petitioner without adverting to the word ' mainly' mentioned in the aforesaid provision. Of law therefore, impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same were not in line with the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-
(1) Bhagwandas Chawala v. Kishanchand Parwani and others (1997 CLC 605).
(2) Syed Nazir Ali Rizvi v. Mirza Nasir Baig and others (1997 CLC 719).
(3) Sardar Talib Hussain Nakai v. Returning Officer and another (1993 M LD 2485).
(4) Haji Ghulam Sabir Ansari v. Returning Officer (1993 M LD 2508).
3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner is a director of the Rao Associates (Private) Limited as is evident from Form 29-A attached with the grounds of appeal at page 46. Rao Associates secured a loan from the National Bank of Pakistan and did not repay the same to the said bank. The National Bank of Pakistan filed two suits for recovery against Rao Associates (Private) Limited including Rao Tariq Mehmood the present petitioner. The competent Banking Court passed a decree for an amount of Rs,15,88,945 in 'Suit No,730 of 1997 and another decree pertaining to Suit No,145 of 1999 for a sum of Rs,30,14,689 in favour of the National Bank of Pakistan, against the defendants severally and 'jointly including the present petitioner. The petitioner did not attach copies of the plaints along with the annexures filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against the Rao Associates and others. It is also an admitted fact that the defendants did not file any appeal against the aforesaid decrees. This fact was not mentioned by the petitioner in the columns of the Liabilities, Verification and in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in the nomination papers. This fact alone is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified to contest the election in view of section 8D(1)(g) of the aforesaid order. As the decrees against the petitioner stand unsatisfied and the debt is not finally repaid, the petitioner is a defaulter of a bank loan. The tribunals below were justified to reject the nomination papers of the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 14(5A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, which empowers the Tribunal to reject the nomination papers if it is found that a candidate is a defaulter of loan. It is pertinent to mention here that section 14(3)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 contemplates rejection of the nomination papers of a candidate if the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of the aforesaid Act are not complied with. As mentioned above, by virtue of the decrees referred to above, it was the liability of the petitioner which was suppressed by the petitioner from his nomination papers and filed false affidavit thereby attracting the provision of section 8D(1)(g) of the Conduct of the General Elections Order 2002. The petitioner cannot be considered as an honest person due to the non-disclosure of his liabilities in his nomination papers, therefore, he stood disqualified from contesting the election to the Provincial Assembly, his nomination papers were thus rightly rejected by the tribunals below.
In arriving at this conclusion, we are fortified by the following judgments:- Babu Muhammad Munir v. Appellate Tribunal of the Election Commission and others (1993 SCM R 2348). Aijaz Ali Khan Jatoi v. Liaquat Khan Jatoi (1993 SCM R 2350).
The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands. In view of the concealment of the liabilities in the nomination papers by the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in his favour, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-
(1) Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others (1969 SCM R 141).
(2) Principal King Edward Medical College v. Ghulam Mustafa (1983 SCM R 196).
(3) Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division and others (1998 SCM R 1462). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.