Law: Cantonment Act (II of 1924)

Section: 15-B(g)

Law: Representation of the People Act, 1976

Section: 99(1-a) (j) (k

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section:

  Cantonments Act (11 of 1924)----- ----S.15-B(g)---Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S.99(1-a) (j) & (k)---Petitioner, a Government servant, removed from service for 'misconduct---Rejection of nomination papers of petitioner for election of Local Council---Validity---Petitioner's removal from Government service for misconduct disqualified him to contest elections---Apart from ground c misconduct, petitioner was still disqualified, for period of two years had not yet elapsed since date of his removal from service---Petitioner's nomination papers were, thus, rightly rejected. Ronaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236 and Syed Ali Shah v. Abdul Saghir Khan Sherwani and others PLD 1990 SC 504 ref.   Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)--- ----S. 99(1-a) (j) & (k)---Disqualification to contest election---Petitioner having been removed from Government service for misconduct was disqualified to contest elections of Local Council and also for the fact that two years period from his removal from service had not yet elapsed. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Where impugned order had been passed in aid of justice, to strike it down would amount to perpetuating a manifest illegality. Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioner. Irfan Qadir, Add1.A: G. for Respondents Nos.l and 2. Karamat Nazir Bhindari for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1991, JUDGMENT Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.3 filed nomination papers for contesting election to membership of the Cantonment Board, Gujranwala (Ward No.1) on 3-12-1991. On 5-12-1991 the scrutiny was held by the Returning Officer who accepted the nomination papers of the petitioner and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.l against the acceptance of nomination papers of the petitioner.   Respondent No.l accepted the appeal and rejected the petitioner's nomination papers.   The learned counsel contends that no appeal was competent before respondent No.l under the law. He submits that by virtue of the…