2006 PLP 259 (MLD)
GHULAM AKBAR and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER, U.C. SEHWANI/5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TALUKA LAKHI, DISTRICT SHIKARPUR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 259 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zia Perwaz and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM AKBAR and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER, U.C. SEHWANI/5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TALUKA LAKHI, DISTRICT SHIKARPUR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Local Government Elections Ordinance (X of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 259 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Local Government Elections Ordinance (X of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 259 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zia Perwaz and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 259 (MLD) (GHULAM AKBAR and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER, U.C. SEHWANI/5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TALUKA LAKHI, DISTRICT SHIKARPUR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Inayatullah Morio for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14
Sindh Local Government Election Rules, 2000, Rr.16 & 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination papers
Petitioner was disqualified to contest election on the ground that he had failed to disclose in his nomination papers his residential plot
Respondent had claimed that plot in question was owned by the petitioner which the petitioner had disclaimed despite entry maintained in the Revenue record-Petitioner had sworn three affidavits by different persons who were residents of the same village who had stated that there was no vacant plot in the village and that the entry in revenue record was fabricated
Scope of scrutiny in Constitutional petition being limited, no finding could be given on the issue in that respect without recording evidence, Constitutional petition however, was allowed in circumstances and impugned order was set aside with observation that issue in question could only be decided by leading evidence
Petitioners were allowed to contest election accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Abdul Qadir Abro, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4. The point which requires consideration is that whether a party filing nomination can be disqualified inter alia on the ground that it has failed to disclose in the nomination paper the disputed property which is disowned by the party in spite of the entry maintained in the revenue record. In this respect the Returning Officer and the District Returning Officer had given finding against the petitioner No.2 as a result of which the joint nomination form of the petitioners was rejected.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The residential plot which is the property in dispute is claimed by respondent No.4 to be owned by the petitioner No.2. This fact has been disputed by the petitioner No.2 who claims that he is neither owned nor in possession of the said property. The entry in the revenue record is also denied by the petitioner No.2. We have examined that the petitioner No.2 in support of his submissions that he is not the owner of the plot has sworn three affidavits of the villagers. In the said affidavits the villagers were resident of the same village have specifically stated that there is no vacant plot in the village Esso Tanwri and the entry in the Deh Form was fabricated. Since no finding can be given on the issue without recording' evidence, as the scope of scrutiny is limited and the issue requires evidence, therefore, we allow this petition setting aside the impugned order with the observation that such an issue can only be decided by leading evidence. We allow the petitioners to contest the election and the District Returning Officer shall accordingly take steps to ensure that the petitioners participate in the election. However, it will be open to the respondents to approach the Tribunal in Regular Election Petition in case if the petitioners succeed in the elections and the respondents would be at liberty to raise all the questions of their disqualification by Regular Election Petition. H.B.T./G-68/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.