2001 PLP 1796 (MLD)
Mst. IQBAL BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER/DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1796 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | Mst. IQBAL BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER/DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1796 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1796 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1796 (MLD) (Mst. IQBAL BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER/DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shabbir Raza Rizvi for Petitioner.
- Naseem Sabir Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑R.16‑‑‑Nomination papers, rejection of‑‑‑Nomination papers of the candidate were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that those were not signed by the candidate or by the proposer or seconderer‑‑‑Defect on basis of which nomination papers were rejected was curable and Returning Officer or Appellate Authority should have allowed the candidate to sign the affidavit and the nomination papers ‑‑‑Order rejecting the nomination papers was set aside with direction to the Returning Officer to allot symbol to the candidate. Ghulam Nabi v. Khuda Bakhsh and 2 others PLD 1984 Kar. 245 and Writ Petition No. 7676 of 2001 (unreported) ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑R.16‑‑‑Nomination papers, rejection of‑‑‑Nomination papers of the candidate were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that those were not signed by the candidate or by the proposer or seconderer‑‑‑Defect on basis of which nomination papers were rejected was curable and Returning Officer or Appellate Authority should have allowed the candidate to sign the affidavit and the nomination papers ‑‑‑Order rejecting the nomination papers was set aside with direction to the Returning Officer to allot symbol to the candidate. Ghulam Nabi v. Khuda Bakhsh and 2 others PLD 1984 Kar. 245 and Writ Petition No. 7676 of 2001 (unreported) ref. Syed Shabbir Raza Rizvi for Petitioner. Naseem Sabir Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. for Respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that those are not signed by the candidate or by the proposer or seconderer. Appeal filed by the petitioner also failed. As per the counsel for the petitioner, this is a curable defect and the learned Returning Officer, should have allowed the candidate or seconderer/proposer to sign the papers. In this behalf, reliance has been placed on Ghulam Nabi v. Khuda Bakhsh and 2 others (PLD 1984 Karachi 245) and an unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.7676 of 2001.
2. From the above law, it is clear that such defect was curable and the Returning Officer or the Appellate Authority, should have allowed the petitioner to sign the affidavit and the nomination papers. In the light of above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Returning Officer is directed to allot a symbol to the petitioner. H.B.T./I‑58/L Petition allowed.