| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1192 2004 SLD 1192 2004 SCMR 1484 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.44 of 2004, decision dated: 20-05-2004. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-2-2004 of the Lahore High Court/Election Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore, passed in Election Petition No.59 of 2002)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja M. Shafqat Khan Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court, Umer Atta Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh
Civil Appeal No.44 of 2004, decision dated: 20-05-2004. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-2-2004 of the Lahore High Court/Election Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore, passed in Election Petition No.59 of 2002)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja M. Shafqat Khan Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court, Umer Atta Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh
Sh. AMJAD AZIZ
VS
HAROON AKHTAR KHAN and 10 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Conduct of General Elections Order [Chief Executive's Order 7 of 2002]----Art. 8-A---Educational qualification for member of Parliament/ Provincial Assembly---Candidate who was not a graduate, his candidature to contest the general election suffered from a major defect and he was not qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of the Provincial Assembly. (b) Conduct of General Elections Order [Chief Executive's Order 7 of 2002]-- ----Art. 8-A---Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S.69---Educational qualification for member of Parliament/ Provincial Assembly---Disqualification of returned candidate---Phrase "throw away votes"---Meaning---If the disqualification, of a returned candidate was not notorious at the time of polling, the votes polled in favour of the successful candidate could not be thrown away by giving seat to the candidate with next highest votes---Voters, in the present case, did not know that the candidate was not a graduate and lacked requisite qualification for contesting the election---No steps were taken by anybody to bring to the knowledge of the electors that the candidate was not a graduate---Nomination papers of the candidate were accepted without any objection---Such fact unequivocally postulated that the voters were unaware of his disqualification, therefore, rule of "throw away votes" could not. be involved---Principles. As to what the phrase "throw away votes" means with reference to election, it means that if an elector definitely knows as a fact that the candidate for whom he is about to vote, is disqualified, yet persists in voting for him, the vote is utterly thrown away as if he voted for a dead person or dad not vote at all. With reference to a disqualified person, it is also to be seen if the disqualification not being apparent on the face of it, the votes given by the voters could not be treated as having been thrown away. In order to make the vote a nullity, there must be wilful persistence against known disqualification. If a person is a candidate who is manifestly disqualified, then in such a case the votes given for him may be treated as having been thrown away, since they were perversely and wilfully…
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