Find a Lawyer

MUZAFAR ABBAS versus MAULANA MUHAMMAD AHMAD LUDHIANVI

ections Clauses 14 and 19 - Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 62 and 63 - Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 11 EE Member Member Selection for Provincial Assembly seat - Amendment of nomination papers - Adding the name of the objectionable candidate In a notification issued under the sectional EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 - Checking effect nomination nomination papers - Candidate effect of concealing process assets The candidate moved an application for correction of his dependent son's assets registrations. The candidate who was accepted to contest the contest was the candidate who concealed the assets and filed a false declaration. A - Accuracy - the tribunal was not expected to assess the candidates taxes. The government was only authorized to assess the taxes - no one could be disqualified to contest the election, nor can anyone be deliberately disqualified by the claim that the candidate did not pay income tax or any other tax or liability. Had not yet been assessed by the authority. and the candidate will be disqualified to contest the electoral interdependence if he is accused by a competent jurisdictional court of prejudice against Pakistan in any way promoting or acting in any way. Sentenced. ???? The inclusion of the name of any person in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 cannot be equated with punishment for all intents and purposes of an order passed under the Secular EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 " Cannot be equated with "punishment" - Candidate cannot be said to act against the integrity of the country

P L D 2017 Lahore 394 

Before Muhammad Qasim Khan and Shams Mehmood Mirza , JJ

MUZAFAR ABBAS—Appellant versus

Maulana MUHAMMAD AHMAD LUDHIANVI and 31 others—Respondents

Election Appeal No.4-A of 2016, heard*on 11th November, 2016.

Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)—

—Ss. 14 & 19—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 62 & 63—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 11-EE—Election for the seat of Member Provincial Assembly—Amendment in the nomination papers— Objection—Inclusion of name of candidate in the notification issued under S.ll-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Effect—Scrutiny of nomination papers—Procedure—Concealment of assets—Effect-Candidate moved application for correction of entries with regard to assets of his dependent son which was accepted—Contention of contesting candidate was that false declaration was filed by concealing the assets by the candidate—Validity—Election Tribunal was not expected to assess the taxes of the candidates; Government was only competent to assess the taxes—No one could be disqualified to contest the election nor could be declared wilful defaulter by mere an assertion that candidate had not paid income tax or any other tax or dues which were yet to be assessed by the Authority—Candidate would be disqualified to contest election inter alia if he had been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion or acting in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan—Mere adding name of any person in the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could not be equated with conviction—Order passed under S.ll-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could not be equated with “conviction” for all intents and purposes—Candidate could not be said to have worked against the integrity of the country or ideology of Pakistan by inclusion of name in the notification under S.ll-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Specific date and time was given for scrutiny of nomination papers by the Returning Officer but same was adjourned without any order—Returning Officer was bound to infÓrm; the Election Commission for adjournment of scrutiny proceedings and pass an order in writing for the next date—Returning Officer could allow any defect to be remedied if it was not of substantial nature— Candidate had filed a declaration which was incorporated in the reinitiation papers that there was no other property except mentioned in .he nomination papers in his name and in the name of his dependents—High Court observed that relevant infÓrm;ation must be provided fairly and nothing must be concealed—If assets of a candidate, his spouse or dependent were concealed in the nomination papers, lie could be disqualified on that score alone—Person who wanted to represent a large number of people if elected to participate in the legislation must not be so casual in filing declaration and providing the details in the relevant columns of his nomination papers—Nonproviding the details of assets of dependent child could not be considered as minor omission and could not be allowed to be remedied—Permission granted by the Returning Officer by allowing the application to amend the nomination papers was beyond the scope of S.M (3) (d) (ii) of Representation of the People Act, 1976—Candidate was aware with regard to criminal cases pending against him but he did not mention details of the same and mentioned “NIL” in the relevant column which was concealment of fact—Candidate had concealed the assets of his dependant son at the time of filing of nomination papers and verified the nomination papers through declaration—Personality and pen-picture of the candidate must be before the electoral at the time of casting their votes—Candidate, in circumstances could not be said to be a sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and arneen person to contest election—Orders of Returning Officer accepting the nomination papers of the candidate and granting permission to amend the same were illegal which were set aside—Candidate was held to be disqualified to contest election—Appeal was allowed accordingly. frp. 399, 400, 402, 404, 40SJ A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H

Mulchand v. Smt. Indra and others PLD 1985 Kar. 362; Rashid

v. Returning Officer Nankana Sahib PLD 2013 Lah. 509; PLD 2013 SC 239, Rao Tariq Mehmood v. Election Tribunal, Punjab, Lah. PLD 2003 Lah. 169 and Muhammad Ilyas v. Returning Officer and others PLD 2016 Lah. 179 ref.

Chaudhry Abid Raza v. Election Tribunal Punjab/Lahore High Court, Lahore and 3 others PLD 2008 Lah. 200 and Sheikh Muhammad Akram v. Abdul Ghafoor and 19 others 2016 SCMR 733 distinguished.

Mian Najeem ud Din Owasi and another v. Amir Yar Waran and others PLD 2013 SC 482; Barkhurdar v. Appellate Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, and 3 others PLD 2016 Lah. 101; Irfan Gul Magsi v. Haji Abdul Kahliq Soomro and others 1999 PTD 1302; Rana Muhammad Tajammal Hussain v. Rana Shaukat Mahmood PLD 2007 SC 277 and Muhammad Ahmad Chatta v. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema and others 2016 SCMR 763 ref.

Syed Kalim Ahmad Khurshid and Muhammad Umar Riaz for Appellant.

Rana Baleegh ur Rehman for Respondent No. 1.

Ch. Muhammad Imtiaz Elahi, Stnding Counsel for the Federation of Pakistan.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 2016

list of supreme court advocates from Khair Pur lawyer