Muhammad Ali

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 1.

Malik Muhammad Ali S/o Malik Noor Muhammad, caste Bucha, R/o Mouza Buch Khusro Abad, Union Council No. 60, Multan (candidate for post of Nazim).

2.

Malik Faiz Rasool S/o Malik Noor Akhtar, caste Bucha, R/o Mouza Mouza Buch Khusro Abad, Union Council No. 60, Multan (candidate for post of Naib Nazim). Petitioners VERSUS

1. District Returning Officer, Multan. 2. Returning Officer, Union Council No. 60, Multan (Buch Khusro Abad). 3.

Malik Zubair Akhtar S/o Noor Akhtar, cast Bucha, R/o Mouza Buch Khusro Abad, Union Council No. 60, Multan.

4.

Manager, Habib Bank Ltd. Chak No. 170/TDA Darbar Pir Jaggi, District Layyah.

5.

Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, Multan. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the petitioners submitted their nomination papers as Nazim and Naib Nazim, respectively from Union Council No. 60, Buch Khusro Abad, Multan. 3. That the respondents No. 3 & 4 raised some objections against the petitioners, but the respondent No. 2 treated valid objection from the opponent candidate, “Defaulter of Habib Bank” and from Assistant Commissioner (Sadddar) “Baqidar of Revenue Department” and rejected nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1 by which the nomination papers of respondent No. 2 stand rejected automatically. Copy of order dated 2.5.20001 is Annex “A”. 4. That an appeal was filed under Rule 18 (4) of Punjab Local Govt. Election Rules, 2000, and the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 1, vide judgment dated 9.5.2001, which is Annex “B”. 5. That both the impugned order and judgment dated 2.5.2001, 9.5.2001 passed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively are liable to be set aside inter alia on the following: GROUNDS a)

That both the impugned order and judgment are against the natural justice and law of equity.

b)

That both the impugned order and judgment are against the norms of justice and prevailing law.

c)

That the respondent No. 1, while passing the judgment did not substantiate the same with the summary proceeding as mentioned in the Election Rules 2000.

d)

That the impugned judgment is a biased one and the behaviour of the learned respondent No. 1 was not a judicial one and he was passing sarcastic remarks against the petitioners.

e)

That the petitioner No. 1 was not a willful defaulter as mentioned in section 14 (j) of Punjab Local Govt. Election Ordinance 2000.

f)

That the allegation which was levelled against the petitioner No. 1 was removed after depositing the required amount under protest. The copy of receipt is Annex “C”.

g)

That as well as concerned with allegation of defaulter, it is pertinent to point out that the amount outstanding againt the petitioner No. 1 and the amoutn for which the petitioner No. 2 was a guarantor, all were written off on 28.12.92 from the books of concerned bank. The copies are Annexes “D & E”.

h)

That there is a law for the recovery of this written off amount which is mentioned in Sec-8 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits & Finances) Act, 1997, which is reproduced as under: Sec-8---Suit for recovery of written off loans, etc.--(1) Subject to sub-section (2), and notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act No. IX of 1908), or any other law, a banking company may, within three years from the date of coming into force of this Act, file a suit for the recovery of any amount written off, released or adjusted under any agreement, contract, or consent, including a compromise or withdrawal of any suit or legal proceedings or adjustment of a decree between a banking company and a borrower or customer on any day on or after the first day of January, 1990 and before the coming into force of this Act, if it can establish that the amount was written off, released or adjusted for political reasons or considerations considerations.

other

than

bona

fide

business

(2)

No suit under sub-section (I) shall be filed unless

the Board of Directors, if the banking company is incorporated within Pakistan, or the chief executive (by whatever name called or designated) of the banking company in Pakistan, if the Banking Company is incorporated beyond Pakistan, has approved the filing the suit. i)

That the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not apply judicial and independent mind upon the objection and its solution.

j)

That both the impugned order and judgment caused a great miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents No. 1 & 2 may please be directed to accept the nomination papers of the petitioners and they may please be allowed to contest the elections. Any other writ, order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioners, Dated: ___________

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001

Malik Muhammad Ali etc. Vs. District Returning Officer, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Malik Muhammad Ali S/o Malik Noor Muhammad, caste Bucha, R/o Mouza Buch Khusro Abad, Union Council No. 60, Multan (candidate for post of Nazim).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Malik Muhammad Ali etc. Vs. District Returning Officer, etc. APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “

” are not

available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. PETITIONERS Dated: __________

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Malik Muhammad Ali etc. Vs. District Returning Officer, etc. DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: Malik Muhammad Ali S/o Malik Noor Muhammad, caste Bucha, R/o Mouza Buch Khusro Abad, Union Council No. 60, Multan (candidate for post of Nazim).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/2001 Malik Muhammad Ali etc. Vs. District Returning Officer, etc. INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Copy of order dated 2.5.2001.

A

6

Copy of judgment dated 9.5.2001

B

7

Copy of Deposit Receipt.

C

8

Copies of written off A/c Statements.

9

Dispensation Application.

10

Affidavit.

11

Vakalatnama

D&E

PETITIONERS Dated: ____________