2006 PLP 2224 (YLR)
AMJAD ANWAR and another — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2224 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Salim Khan and Hamid Farooq Durrani, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD ANWAR and another — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and 7 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2224 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2224 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Salim Khan and Hamid Farooq Durrani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2224 (YLR) (AMJAD ANWAR and another — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nisar Hussain and Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioners.
- D.A.-G. along with Sher Afghan D.E.C.H.-Division and Saifur Rehman Assistant for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
Amjad Anwar and Muhammad Azam Shah petitioners contended that they contested election for the Offices of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council Battal, District Mansehra against Sadiq Rashid and Ahmad Yar Khan (one set of joint candidates) Gohar Rehman and Gulzar Khan (second set of joint candidates) as well as Abdul Qadeer Khan and Rehman Shah (third set of joint candidates), that due to dispute regarding delimination and creation of new Union Council Ahl, the nomination papers were filed late and there was very short time for objections, and petitioners initially were candidates for election for Union Council Ahl while respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were candidates for Union Council, Battal, which did not provide chance to the petitioners to raise objections on the candidature of respondents Nos. 3 and
4. The petitioners further contended that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were declared as returned candidates while the petitioners secured second highest number of votes, that the learned Election Tribunal declared the election of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as null and void but ordered fresh elections for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council Battal instead of declaring the petitioners as successful/returned candidates. Hence the writ petition.
2. In the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of record, and relying on our discussion included in the judgment written in Writ Petition No.9 of 2006, we proceed to decide the various points involved in this as follows.
3. The main objection before the Election Tribunal was that Sadiq Rashid (respondent No.3 before us) was found non-matric at the time of the filing of nomination papers and not qualified to contest the election of Nazim. The Sanad of respondent No.3 was not found equivalent to Matric of SSC. Election Petition No.44/E.P. of 2005 was instituted by Amjad Anwar Khan which was accepted to the extent of declaring the election of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as illegal and void but due to applicability of the judgments reported as PLD 2004 SC 505, 2004 CLC 842, PLD 2003 SC 268, PLD 2004 SC 570 and 2004 SCMR 1484 and in the light of the fact that petitioners had obtained 1116 votes while respondents 3 and 4 had obtained 2730, the learned Election Tribunal declared fresh elections. The reasons advanced by the learned Election Tribunal for declaring fresh elections are solid and require no interference.
4. We, therefore, do not find any defect in the impugned order of the learned Election Tribunal and do not find any merit in the present writ petition which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./127/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.