LAHORE, Sept 18: Lahore High Court (LHC) officials on Wednesday evening returned the petition against disqualification of PML-N leaders Shahbaz Sharif and Kulsoom Nawaz, saying that it had a legal flaw.

The petition was filed by the counsel for Sharif family, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, earlier in the day. LHC officials had initially marked the petition for regular hearing on Friday (tomorrow) but later withdrew the order.

It was pointed out that the petition did not include the names of those persons as respondents who had challenged the candidature of Mr Shahbaz and Ms Kulsoom before the election tribunal. It was maintained by the authorities concerned that under the law, no petition could be entertained if the name of any respondent was not mentioned in it.

When contacted, Mr Ausaf said he would include the missing names in the petition.

Earlier, Mr Ausaf filed the petition before the full bench comprising Justice Javed Butar, Justice Ejaz Chaudhry and Justice Jamshed Ausaf Ali on behalf of the disqualified PML-N leaders, asking the bench to set aside the judgment of the election tribunal and direct the ROs concerned to include their names in the final list of candidates.

According to the petitioners, the tribunal had no authority to question the authenticity of signatures of the two candidates. The appellants could not do so either, as they were not familiar with the signatures of Mr Shahbaz and Ms Kulsoom.

It was pleaded that the onus to prove the authenticity of signatures was shifted to the candidates who obliged by sending an affidavit carrying two specimen of their signatures.

It was submitted that the tribunal had relied on an unattested affidavit — apparently issued by the Pakistani Consulate General in Jeddah — which intimated to the government of Pakistan that the Jeddah office had not received the nomination papers of the two candidates for attestation. The petitioners pleaded that this affidavit had been produced by an individual, who was not inquired about the source of this affidavit. “The tribunal readily accepted the unattested document and brought it on record,” the petition submits.

With regard to the attestation of Mr Shahbaz and Begum Kulsoom’s signatures on the nomination papers, the petition contended that according to Section 12(2) of the Representation of People’s Act 1976, attestation of the candidates’ signatures on filed nomination papers was not mandatory. It was argued that the Jeddah consulate general’s attestation of signatures was, therefore, not necessary.

“No objection was raised by the RO concerned while receiving the papers of the petitioners. Rather, he issued a clearance receipt when the papers were filed, the petitioners maintained.

About the alleged default committed by Shahbaz, the petition maintained that the tribunal had ignored the settled law that a “pending recovery” did not constitute a loan — as defined in the Representation of People’s Act 1976.

It was argued that Mr Shahbaz had not acquired any loan in his own name or in the name of his dependents or business concerns mainly owned by him. The petition challenged the tribunal’s finding that the petitioner was the real beneficiary of the loan. Besides, the assets of Ittefaq Foundries (Pvt) Ltd and Ittefaq Brothers Ltd were taken over by the bank concerned, which was the final remedy for both the parties, the petition maintained.

Meanwhile, the LHC full bench upheld the decision of the election tribunal allowing Nasrullah Dareshik and Ghulam Abbas to contest the October polls.

Mr Dareshik’s rival candidate had challenged his candidature on grounds that he had concealed some of his assets in his nomination papers. The bench turned down the objection saying that there was nothing on record to suggest that Mr Dareshik had concealed his assets.

The bench dismissed the objections raised against the candidature of former provincial minister Ghulam Abbas saying that he could not be disqualified from contesting the elections as he had cleared his PTCL dues.