Mansoor Ali vs District Returning OfficerS N-A 231 and N-A 230 art — 2024 MLD 1259 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH |

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mansoor Ali VS District Returning OfficerS N-A 231 and N-A 230 art. 63(1)(o)---Elections act ( XXXIII of 2017 ), S. 62 (10) --- Rejection of candidate's nomination papers ---Tax liability of candidate --- Liability existing "at the time of filing of nomination papers"---Scope---Knowledge of tax liability---Subsection (10) of S.62 of the Elections act, 2017, benefit of---Returning Officer rejected the candidate's nomination papers on the ground that as per a letter received from the concerned officer, a sum of Rs. 672,500/- was outstanding against him as income tax--- Contention of the petitioner was that though no such liability was outstanding, nonetheless he paid the amount on the next day followed by issuance of No Demand Certificate by Federal Board of Revenue to him which was then placed before the learned Election Tribunal with his appeals--- However, the Election Tribunal , relying on art. 63(1)(o) of the Constitution held that since such liability existed "at the time of filing of nomination papers", the subsequent payment could not rescue the petitioner, and also the benefit of subsection (10) of S.62 of the Elections act, 2017, was not given to the petitioner by observing that he could not say that he did not have knowledge of his tax liability---Letter in-question on which the Returning Officers had placed reliance, suggested that income tax liability of the petitioner for tax year-2022, which amount to Rs. 769,235/- was not paid, whereas the income tax return for that tax year placed on the record determined the tax payable as Rs. 73,095/-, and he (petitioner) had placed on record the paid challan of said amount--- Therefore, it appeared that the letter-in-question might not be correct--- In such circumstances, even the material relied upon by the Returning Officer for rejecting the Petitioner's nomination forms, was hardly sufficient to disenfranchise him--- Thus, it could also not be said that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed his tax liability--- Consequently, the benefit of subsection (10) of S.62 of the Elections act, 2017, should have been extended to the petitioner when he had in any case cleared the alleged tax liability before the last date of scrutiny of nomination papers, and well before he filed appeals before the Election Tribunal--- It is inopportune to disfranchise a candidate at the pre-election stage as that would deprive him of candidature if subsequently it is found that he was qualified--- High Court set-aside orders passed by the Returning Officer as well as Election Tribunal while directing the Returning Officer to revise the list of validly nominated candidates accordingly --- Constitutional petition , filed by the candidate, was allowed accordingly.

Mansoor Ali vs District Returning OfficerS N-A 231 and N-A 230 art — 2024 MLD 1259 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD