Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 490 2016 SLD 490 2016 SCMR 439
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3292 of 2015, decided on 18th November, 2015. Date of hearing: 18th November, 2015.
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY AND MUSHIR ALAM, JJ
Arif Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

ALI RAZA FATIANA

VS

ELECTION APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SAHIWAL and others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2013--- ----R. 12(2)---Nomination for elections---Proposer---Person contesting seat for Chairman/Vice Chairman/Member Union Council---Such person could not act as a proposer for a candidate who was contesting for Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Member Union Council---However, where such person withdrew his nomination papers before the scrutiny of his proposed candidate, he could act as proposer for the latter. Nomination papers for Chairman and Vice-Chairman (respondents) Union Council were proposed by a person, who himself submitted nomination papers for Vice-Chairman Union Council in the same constituency. Returning Officer informed the respondents that as their proposer himself was contesting election and could not propose any candidate, their nomination papers were liable to be rejected, upon which the respondents requested for adjournment, which was granted and the case was fixed on 2-10-2015. Meanwhile, on 1.10.2015 proposer in question filed an application to withdraw his nomination papers as a candidate. Returning Officer could have passed the order on the same day but he adjourned the case, which meant that the process of scrutiny of respondents was not over. Proposer had withdrawn his nomination papers on 1.10.2015 prior to the date extended by the Returning Officer i.e. 2.10.2015 for the scrutiny of respondents' nomination papers. Nomination papers of respondents had been rightly accepted in such circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Election process---Order passed by an election functionary---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could only be invoked "where no legal remedy was available to an aggrieved party during the process of election or after its completion, against an order of an election functionary which was patently illegal/without jurisdiction and the effect of which was to disfranchise a candidate." ORDER IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2015 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby the Writ Petition filed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492