Writ petition against MNA Murad Saeed dismissed

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed against disqualification of the PTI MNA Murad Saeed for making false declaration while filing nomination papers for the 2013 general election.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Ikramullah Khan and Justice Qalandar Ali Khan dismissed the writ petition after hearing arguments from both the parties.

The court observed that the matters, which were agitated by the petitioner should have been raised by him during the process of objection on the nomination papers.

The bench declared that an elected representative could not be disqualified on such grounds and with inappropriate time.

Haider Ali Shah, a resident of Swat district and voter from NA-29, had filed the petition, saying by giving false declaration under Section 12 of the Representation of People’s Act, Murad Saeed not only failed to qualify to become a lawmaker under Article 62 of the Constitution but also exposed himself to disqualification under Section 99 of the RPA.

The counsel for the petitioner said MNA Murad Saeed was non-sagacious and dishonest person and. Therefore, he should be disqualified as MNA.

He claimed that when Murad was a Bachelor of Environmental Sciences student at the University of Peshawar, he used the varsity’s hostel and defaulted in payment of various dues, including that of hostel charges amounting to Rs19,680.

The lawyer said the default in payments were from 2007 to 2009 and continued even at the time of submission of his nomination papers for election.

He said the MNA had given false declaration regarding his educational qualification and therefore, he did not qualify to become a lawmaker.

He requested the court to declare illegal the notification of Murad’s election as NA-29 MNA.

Aamir Javed, counsel for Murad Saeed, said he was a regular student of four-year Bachelor of Environmental Sciences programme at the UoP in the 2005-09 session.

He said he had completed all eight semesters and was entitled to have the degree but the UoP hadn’t been issuing him the degree, which was an illegal act on its part.