2006 PLP 2253(1) (YLR)
AMANULLAH KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2253(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zia Pervaiz and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | AMANULLAH KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2253(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2253(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zia Pervaiz 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 2253(1) (YLR) (AMANULLAH KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Hussain Surhio for Petitioner.
- Habibullah G. Ghori for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 12th August, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 12 & 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination form of petitioner on his failure to disclose immovable properties in his assets
Contention of petitioner was that assets which were alleged to have been owned by him, were neither owned by him nor were in his possession
Scope of scrutiny under constitutional jurisdiction, was limited and no factual enquiry could be gone into
Parties were free to raise all such objections in regard to disqualification of a candidate in a regular election petition
Petitioner, in circumstances was allowed to contest election and impugned order of rejection of nomination papers was set aside. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Additional A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
The petition impugns the order of the Returning Officer and District Returning Officer by which the form of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that he has failed to disclose the immovable properties in his assets. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assets which are shown to have been owned by the petitioner are neither owned nor in his possession and report of the Mukhtiarkar is disputed by him. The learned counsel for the respondent states that both the orders impugned are in his favour and therefore this petition does not lie. The scope of scrutiny is limited and no factual enquiry can be gone into. It will however be open to parties to raise all these objections in regard to the disqualification of the nature in regular election petition. The petitioner, for the aforesaid reasons is allowed to contest the election and the impugned orders passed are set aside. H.B.T./A-72/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.