IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
       (Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.636 OF 2013 
(On appeal from the order dated 23.4.2013 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in WP No.9349 
of 2013) 
 
 
Miss Kalsum Khaliq Advocate, Islamabad 
 
     … Petitioner 
 
 
     
VERSUS  
 
1. 
The 
Election 
Commission 
of 
Pakistan etc. 
2. 
Malik Shabbir Hussain Awan, RO 
3. 
Imtiaz Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad, 
Muhammad Hashim Sahou, Ghulam 
Farid Mairani,  
4. 
Ghulam Haider Thind and others 
   
    … Respondent (s) 
 
Petitioner: 
In person  
 
For 
Ghulam 
Haider 
Thind, 
respondent No.34 
Mr. Ahsan Bhoon, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
On Court notice: 
Malik Muhammad Tariq,  
DG, Social Security,  
Mr. Aleem Perviaz, Dir (Legal) 
Mr. M. Anwar Dy. Dir. 
Mr. Mumtaz Niazi, SSO, Layyah 
 
Date of hearing: 
09.5.2013. 
 
ORDER 
 
 IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.- This 
petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 
CP No.636-2013 
- 2 - 
23.4.2013 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore  in Writ 
Petition No.9349 of 2013. 
2. 
 
Precisely stating, facts of the case are that respondent 
No.34 Ghulam Haider Thind s/o Malik Ghulam Rasool [hereinafter 
referred to as “the respondent”] submitted nomination papers as a 
candidate for Constituency PP-266 Layyah. An objection was raised 
against his candidature on the ground of non-payment of social 
security dues of Rs.256500/-  in respect of a flour mill (M/s Ahmad 
Khan Flour Mills, Layyah) owned by him for the months of March, 
May & June, 2009 and April 2010 to March 2013. His nomination 
papers were rejected on 06.04.2013 for this and other reasons.  
3. 
 
It may not be out of context to note that in pursuance of 
the letter dated 4.4.2013 by the Director, Punjab Employees Social 
Security, Institution  an amount of Rs.1,40,300/- was deposited on 
5.4.2013. The detail of which is given below:- 
S.No.    Period  
Booked 
 Amount  
Increase  Total 
1. 
March, 2009, May & June, 
2009 March, 2010 to June, 
2012 
58,140 
29070 
87210 
2. 
January & February, 2010 
- 
594 
594 
3. 
July, 2012 to February, 
2013 
34907 
12,189 
47,096 
4. 
March, ,2013 
5400 
- 
5400 
Total 
98,447 
41853 
140,300 
 
CP No.636-2013 
- 3 - 
 It is explained that out of the total alleged amount, the respondent 
had been depositing the amount from time to time, therefore, after 
deducting the same, the balance was deposited on 5.4.2013 for the 
periods which have been mentioned hereinabove.  
4. 
 
As a consequence of the rejection of the Nomination 
Papers, an appeal was preferred by the respondent being Election 
Appeal No.09/2013, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 
10.4.2013. Relevant para therefrom reads thus: -  
“3. 
 Although the appellant has made payment towards 
Social Security Fund yet on account of the allegations 
discussed in he first part of the order, the appellant’s 
candidature was to be dealt with consciously and by not 
allowing him to enter into the election process as qualified 
candidate. The learned Returning Officer, in our considered 
view, has reached a right decision. The result of the above 
discussion is that the findings arrived at by the learned 
Returning Officer are upheld and this appeal preferred against 
rejection of the appellant’s nomination papers stands 
dismissed.”  
 
5. 
 
Against the above order, a Writ Petition No.9349/2013 
was preferred by the respondent, which has been allowed vide 
impugned order dated 23.4.2013, wherein regarding the outstanding 
amount of contribution of Social Security it has been dealt with as 
under:- 
“5. 
In our view the impugned order dated 10.4.2013 
passed by the learned Election Tribunal is not 
sustainable for the following reasons:- 
(i) 
…………………………………... 
CP No.636-2013 
- 4 - 
 
………………………………….. 
(ii) 
As far as the question of default is concerned, 
there is nothing on record to show that the 
petitioner has controlling interest or majority 
shareholding in Ahmad Flour Mills, Layyah. 
The fact that petitioner paid the liability of the 
company does not by itself indicate that the 
petitioner was liable to pay the said account. 
The explanation offered by the learned counsel 
for the petitioner that he paid the said amount as 
a matter of abundant caution in order to avoid 
of possibility of being termed as a defaulter, 
seems plausible. Even otherwise, there is 
nothing on record that may indicate that the 
petitioner is in default of social security 
contributions in his personal capacity or on the 
basis of the liability of any company in which 
he holds the controlling interest.” 
 
6. 
 
The petitioner, who is an objector being a voter, has 
instituted instant petition for leave to appeal, inter alia, on the 
ground that the case of the respondent falls within the mischief of 
Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973 and on account of his default in making the payment of the 
Government dues, he was disqualified to contest the election. 
According to her, the learned High Court had not taken into 
consideration, the judgment of the learned Returning Officer as well 
as the Appellate Forums. Because there was no question at all 
regarding holding the controlling shares or not, as admittedly, the 
amount outstanding towards the Social Security Institution was 
CP No.636-2013 
- 5 - 
deposited by the respondent on 5.4.2013, as per the challan, which 
has been produced before the Court.  
7. 
 
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent 
seriously controverted to the arguments, raised by her as according to 
him in the Nomination Papers nothing was concealed and as the 
petitioner, while disclosing the factum of the outstanding dues had 
stated that to the extent of the shares of 9/16th in M/s Ahmed Khan 
Flour Mills, his lady wife Saeeda Begum is the owner and so far the 
shares in her favour had not been transferred, as litigation is pending 
in the Civil Court as well as in the High Court, therefore, on account 
of this reason, that any amount, which was due, was not deposited 
hence the statement so made by the respondent is without concealing 
anything and  therefore, following the law laid down by this Court in 
the case of Munir Ahmed  and another v. District Returning 
Officer/Appellate Authority, Sargodha and others (2004 SCMR 
1456), 
the 
amount 
was 
deposited 
under 
the 
compelling 
circumstances, as such, the respondent cannot be declared defaulter 
in the payment of Government Dues in terms of the Article 63(1)(o) 
of the Constitution. He has also stated that in order to examine an 
identical question, a larger Bench of this Court has granted leave to 
appeal in Civil Petition No.626/2013 titled as “Jamil Hassan Khan v. 
Returning Officer, PP_174 Nankana Sahib and others”  
8. 
 
We have heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for 
the respondent, Malik Muhammad Tariq, D.G., Punjab Employees’ 
CP No.636-2013 
- 6 - 
Social Security Institution and Mr. Mumtaz Niazi, SSO, Layyah & 
D.G Khan and have perused the record. 
9. 
 
It may not be out of place to note that the Flour Mills in 
respect whereof it is alleged that the respondent being its owner, was 
originally registered by the Social Security Organization as Ahmed 
Khan Flour Mills, Layyah owned by Ch. Akram Khan and had been 
depositing the Social Security Dues and according to DG, Punjab 
Employees’ Social Security Institution an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- 
was found due against the respondent commencing from the month 
of March, 2009 to onward and no sooner the Department learnt that 
the respondent is contesting the election, it wrote a letter to  the 
Retuning Officer pointing out the default, which had been committed 
by him and subsequent thereto on 5.4.2013 the amount referred to 
hereinabove has been deposited through different challans, the 
breakup, which has been given hereinabove. Prima facie, it seems 
that there is a default of the Government Dues for a period of more 
than six months form the time when the Nomination Papers were 
filed. Therefore, under the circumstances, the Returning Officer as 
well as the appellate Court vide orders dated 06.04.2013 and 
10.4.2013 respectively came to the conclusion that the respondent 
was disqualified from contesting the election.  
10. 
  
Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine as to 
whether respondent Ghulam Haider Thind is not disqualified under 
Article 63(1)(n) of the Constitution from contesting election from 
CP No.636-2013 
- 7 - 
PP-266 Layyah, as admittedly he had paid government dues of 
Rs.140300/- on 05.04.2013 towards Social Security for over six 
months at the time of filing of his nomination papers. And in the 
meanwhile respondent Ghulam Haider Thind is restrained from 
contesting election for Constituency PP-266 polling of which is 
scheduled to be held on 11.05.2013.  
11. 
 
Notices to all the respondents be issued for a date in 
office.  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Chief Justice   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
9th May, 2013 
*M Safdar Mahmood/* 
 
Approved For Reporting