IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2014 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
19.11.2014 
passed 
by 
Election 
Tribunal, 
Bahawalpur & D.G. Khan Divisions in Election 
Petition No. 13/2013) 
 
Ms. Shamuna Badshah Qaisarani 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
Khuwaja Muhammad Dawood and others 
…Respondents  
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Khadim Nadeem Malik, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch, AOR 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR  
 
Date of Hearing:  
09.05.2016 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In the bye-election that was held 
for the Punjab Assembly constituency PP-240 D.G. Khan-I, the 
appellant was declared returned candidate. Her election was 
challenged by losing candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 through an 
election petition filed in the Election Tribunal, Bahwalpur and D.G. 
Khan Divisions under Section 52 of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1976. Corrupt and illegal practices were alleged. 
During pendency of the election petition, the respondent No. 1 
moved an application under Section 76A of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1976. This provision of law entrusts the Election 
Tribunal with additional power to declare an election of the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628/2014 
2 
returned candidate void if any material from any source or 
information is laid before it that the returned candidate had inter 
alia submitted a false or incorrect statement of assets and 
liabilities of his own or his spouse or his dependents. Before the 
Tribunal though the allegations of corrupt practices could not be 
established however while hearing the application filed under 
Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 it 
transpired that the respondent No. 1 in her nomination form failed 
to disclose properties such as (i) land measuring 448 kanals 4 
marlas situated in Moza Bairoot Mandhawani, Tribal District Khazi 
Khan (owned by husband of the appellant) and (ii) land measuring 
263 kanals 14 marlas situated in Moza Bait Wasava Khan Wala 
Tehsil and District Layyah and (iii) land measuring 13 kanals 16 
marlas situated in Bait Wasava Kalroo Tehsil and District Layyah, 
and (iv) land measuring 77 acres situated in Mouza Khanwala, 
Wasavewala, Layyah (owned by the appellant) were not disclosed in 
the nomination papers. Consequently, the election of the appellant 
was declared void and fresh elections were ordered to be held in 
the constituency. Against such decision, the present appeal has 
been filed.  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that 
Section 76A of Representation of the People Act, 1976 is contrary 
to the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution. He submitted 
that according to Article 225 of the Constitution, no election to a 
House or Provincial Assembly can be called in question except by 
election petition and in the election petition the respondent No. 1 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628/2014 
3 
failed in establishing plea of corrupt and illegal election practices.  
He submitted that in the circumstances the Election Tribunal 
ought not to have entertained the application filed under Section 
76A of Representation of the People Act, 1976. In support of his 
contention, he relied upon the case of Muhammad Ahmad Chatta 
Vs. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema (2016 SCMR 763).  
 
3. 
 
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 
contended that in the application filed by the respondent No. 1 
under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, 
he has clearly mentioned certain properties owned by the appellant 
and her husband, which were admittedly concealed by the 
appellant at the time of filing her nomination papers. He submitted 
that even in the nomination papers that were filed in the General 
Elections 2013, the appellant had disclosed one of her properties 
measuring 77 acres in Mouza Khanwala, Wasavewala, Layyah but 
at the time of contesting bye-election the same and some other 
properties were not disclosed.  
 
4. 
 
The fact that certain properties were not disclosed in 
the nomination papers was not denied. The only defence that was 
taken was that as these properties have already been transferred 
in the names of appellant’s brothers, therefore, the same were not 
disclosed in nomination form. It is an admitted position that only 
in an affidavit it has been disclosed that the properties have been 
transferred to her brothers. At the time of filing of the nomination 
papers these properties were admittedly in the name of the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628/2014 
4 
appellant and her spouse in the revenue record. With regard to the 
legal objection that Section 76A of Representation of the People 
Act, 1976 is contrary to the provisions of Article 225 of the 
Constitution, the same is misconceived. Article 225 of the 
Constitution clearly provides that no election to a House or 
Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an 
election petition presented to such tribunal and in such manner as 
may be determined by Act of Parliament. The Representation of the 
People Act, 1976 is an Act of the Parliament, which has provided 
the manner in which election is to be challenged before the 
Election Tribunal. The scope of challenge, which covers the acts of 
corrupt and illegal practices committed by or on behalf of the 
returned candidates in the conduct of the elections, is mentioned 
in Section 68 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 whereas 
Section 76A grants suo moto powers to the Election Tribunal to 
declare election of a returned candidate void on certain grounds 
which include non-disclosure or incorrect disclosure of assets of 
the candidate or his spouse or his dependents. Under Section 76A 
such disclosure can come from any source before the Election 
Tribunal, which in the present case came from respondent No. 1. 
The procedure adopted by the respondent No.1 and entertained by 
the Election Tribunal in an election petition being very much 
within the confines of Article 225 of the Constitution, it cannot be 
said to be unconstitutional. Article 225 clearly provides that the 
forum to challenge the election to a House or Provincial Assembly 
is the Election Tribunal and the manner in which such challenge is 
to be made is to be determined by the Parliament and for the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628/2014 
5 
purposes of the present proceedings, the manner is provided in 
Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.  
 
5. 
 
The above are the detailed reasons of our short order 
of even date vide which we had dismissed this appeal.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad, the 
9th of May, 2016 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram+