Law: Elections Act, 2017

Section: XXXIII,63

Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)-------S. 63---Election dispute---Nomination papers, rejection of---Proposer not from the constituency---Effect---Appellant/ candidate was aggrieved of rejection of his nomination papers as his proposer was not from the constituency---Validity--- After delimitation process, constituencies were clearly defined, and lists of registered voters/electoral rolls for all constituencies were available in black and white---Due diligence by any man of prudence would enable such error to be avoided which even otherwise could be well pre-empted by filing up to five nomination papers with different proposers and seconders in case of any ambiguity and this was not so done by appellant/candidate---Election Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in order passed by Returning Officer, which was unexceptionable---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.Rana Muhammad Tajammal Hussain v. Rana Shaukat Mahmood PLD 2007 SC 277; Sharafat Ali and another v. D.R.O. and others 2008 SCMR 539; Jamshed Iqbal Cheema v. The Election Appellate Tribunal and 19 others 2022 CLC 463 and Ijaz v. Returning Officer PP-115, Faisalabad W.P. No.223502 of 2018 ref.ORDERRASAAL HASAN SYED, J.---This appeal under section 63 of the Elections Act, 2017 is directed against order dated 30.12.2023 of the Returning Officer whereby the nomination papers of the appellant as a candidate for PP-174 were rejected.2.    The rejection was occasioned by the fact that upon examination of the Voter Certificate of the proposer one Muhammad Ramzan his name was found not to exist on the electoral roll as a registered voter for the said constituency. Upon this finding of fact the Returning Officer proceeded to reject the nomination papers.3.    Learned counsel for the appellant has candidly admitted that the proposer of the appellant Muhammad Ramzan no longer figured on the electoral roll of registered voters for constituency PP-174 but actually was from PP-173. He has argued that the mistake got committed by inadvertence and that "the same name and places of two PP-173 and PP-174 confused the appellant and seconder" as given at ground "e" of the grounds of…