| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLD 738 = 1997 CLC 1182 |
Election Tribunal, Balochistan
Election Petition No. 8 of 1996, decided on 1st January, 1997.
Presented By: Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri, JJ
H. Shakeel Ahmad for Petitioner.
Election Petition No. 8 of 1996, decided on 1st January, 1997.
Presented By: Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri, JJ
H. Shakeel Ahmad for Petitioner.
Haji MUHAMMAD HAYAT JAMALDINI---Petitioner
VERSUS
RETURNING OFFICER/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NOUSHKI PB-05 CHAGHI---Respondent
Law: Representation of the People Act, 1976
Section: 1 2, 14 , 99 , 62 , 63
Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)--- ----Ss. 12, 14 & 99---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.62 & 63---Rejection of petitioner's nomination papers by Returning Officer on day of scrutiny for non-appearance of candidate, his authorized agent/proposer or seconder-- Validity---Returning Officer has to satisfy himself as to whether candidate was qualified or not to be elected as Member; as also whether proposer or seconder were qualified to subscribe nomination papers, therefore, their presence was mandatory---Returning Officer has further to satisfy himself whether provisions of Ss. 12 & 13, Representation of the People Act, 1976 had been complied with or not as also whether signatures of proposer and seconder were genuine or otherwise---Where neither candidate himself nor his duly authorized agent proposer or seconder, were present, Returning Officer had no option but to reject nomination papers 1991 CLC 571 and 1994 MLD 499 ref. H. Shakeel Ahmad for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 1st January, 1997. ORDER IFTIKHAR- MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Appellant Haji Muhammad Hayat Jamaldini, feeling aggrieved from following order, passed by Returning Officer for PB-5, Chaghi, has preferred instant appeal:-- "I have examined this nomination paper in accordance with the provision of section 14 of the Representative of the People Act. 1976 and decide as follows:-- The nomination paper of the candidate was delivered to the undersigned through authorization. The authorized person appearing on behalf of the candidate disclosed that the candidate is out of Pakistan. However, the nomination paper was received. On the date of scrutiny the candidate was not present. Nor any authorized person was appeared on his behalf. The signature of the candidate was also found doubtful. It is further believed from the list provided by the WAPDA authorities through Fax i.e. Rs.43,789 are outstanding as WAPDA dues against the candidate. Therefore, the nomination paper is rejected. (Sd.) Dated: 27-12-1996. Returning Officer. P. W.5 Chagai. " Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel, argued that under section 14 of…