| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5208 = 1966 SLD 5208 = 1966 PLD 348 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Writ Petition No. 611 of 1965, decided on 18th January 1966.
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmad and S. Anwarul Haq, JJ
Nooruddin Sarki for Appellant. M. Ebrahim M. Memon for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 611 of 1965, decided on 18th January 1966.
Presented By: Wahiduddin Ahmad and S. Anwarul Haq, JJ
Nooruddin Sarki for Appellant. M. Ebrahim M. Memon for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD HASSAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
ELECTION TRIBUNAL, JACOBABAD AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Electoral College Act (IV of 1964)
Section: 53(1),53(f),58
Electoral College Act (IV of 1964)----Ss. 53(1)(f) & 58 Expression "or otherwise has any pecuniary interest in such council or committee" in S. 53 (1) (f )-Pecuniary interest need not be in respect of work alone or goods supplied to council or committee Extent of pecuniary interest-Not material-Pecuniary interest, however small, entails disqualification-Person at material time contractor of Town Committee for collecting octroi on behalf of Committee-Mere fact that objection not raised at time of scrutiny of nomination paper-Does not disentitle another candidate to file election petition on that ground under S. 58. Under clause (f ) of subsection (1) of section 53 of the Elec toral College Act, 1964, the disqualification is contemplated in two respects: firstly, if a person is a party to a contract for work to be done or goods to be supplied to a Union Council or Town Committee or Union Committee within whose jurisdiction the electoral unit is situate he is not qualified for standing as a candidate for the election of the Electoral College. It is further provided that if he has otherwise any pecuniary interest in such Council or Committee he will also be disqualified from standing as a candidate in such election. It is not necessary that the pecuniary interest referred to in clause (f) should be of the same nature as is described in the earlier part of the clause. Nor does the quali fication or disqualification of a person depend on the extent of the pecuniary interest. Such interest, however small or insignificant it may be, entails disqualification. Where the election of a person was challenged on the ground that he was a contractor of the Town Committee for the collection of Octroi on behalf of the Committee at the time of filing the nomination paper and as such disqualified to contest election, it was urged that since the objection had not been taken at the appropriate time namely when the nomination paper was filed, it could not be raised for the first time in the election petition under section 58 of the Act nor the Election Tribunal, in such case, has jurisdiction to go into such question: Held, cases can be visualised…