2008 PLP 843 (CLC)
ALI MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus IQBAL KHAWAJA — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 843 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus IQBAL KHAWAJA — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 843 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 843 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 843 (CLC) (ALI MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus IQBAL KHAWAJA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 14(1) & 67(3)
Rejection of nomination papers
Nomination papers filed by candidate were rejected on the ground that at the time of scrutiny seconder of the candidate was not present
Presence of the proposer and seconder at the time of scrutiny was not mandatory and the rejection of the nomination papers, on the ground of absence of seconder, was not warranted under the law
Returning officer was directed to accept nomination of the candidate.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal has been filed against the rejection of the nomination of the appellant from PS-21 Naushero Feroze-III. The grounds for rejection of the nomination papers is that at the time of scrutiny the seconder of the candidate was not present. Mr. Shoaib Bukhari, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the seconder was present and has gone to offer Zohar prayer and just after the rejection has appeared before the Returning Officer but his presence was not marked. He submits that along with the appeal the seconder has also filed his affidavit narrating the facts as stated above. Mr. Agha Zafir Ali, A.A.-G. and Mr. Atta-ur-Rehman, Assistant Election Commissioner, submit that the presence of the proposer and seconder before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny is not mandatory and it is optional as under subsection (1) of section 14 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 word "may" has been used. Both the learned A.A.-G. and Assistant Election Commissioner are of the opinion that the presence of the candidate and the proposer is sufficient to accept the nomination paper of the appellant, if he is not suffering from any other disqualification. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant provision of law. The presence of the proposer and seconder at the time of scrutiny is not mandatory and the rejection of the nomination paper on the ground of absence of seconder is not warranted under the law. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and direct the Returning Officer to accept the nomination of the appellant, if he is not suffering from any other disqualification. H.B.T./A-17/K Appeal allowed.