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 other than bona fide business
considerations.
 (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. D&E
9 Dispensation Application.
10 Affidavit.
11 Vakalatnama

PETITIONERS
Dated: ____________