Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Presid (PLP)
Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KAIRA — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, PP-96, GUJRAT-6 and others — Respondent
| Citation | Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Presid (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KAIRA — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, PP-96, GUJRAT-6 and others — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Presid (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Presid (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Presid (PLP) (Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KAIRA — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, PP-96, GUJRAT-6 and others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.14
Rejection of nomination papers
Where a candidate or a voter had not objected to acceptance or rejection of nomination papers of another candidate at time of scrutiny he could not file appeal against order of Returning Officer
Proceedings before Election Tribunal being of summary nature, High Court in appeal could not start recording evidence particularly when objections were not raised before Returning Officer with regard to acceptance or rejection of nomination papers.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.
Since similar point of law regarding the competency of the appellants to file appeals, is involved in Appeal No.32 of 1993 filed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam Kaira against the acceptance of nomination papers of Ijaz Ahmad by the Returning Officer of PP-96 Gujrat-VI, Appeal No.35 of 1993 filed by Malik Bashir-ud-Din Khalid against the acceptance of nomination papers of Abdur Rehman Mangat by the Returning Officer of the Minorities Seat, Appeal No.37 of 1993 filed by Sardar Hassan Akhtar Mokal against the acceptance of the nomination papers of Malik Muhammad Ashiq by the Returning Officer of PP-152 Kasur-VIII, Appeal No.39 of 1993 filed by Liaqat Khan against the acceptance of nomination papers of Muhammad Afzal Chan by the Returning Officer of PP 100 Mandi Baha-ud-Din and Appeal No.44 of 1993 filed by Major Retd. Tariq Zia Chaudhry against the acceptance of nomination papers of Muhammad Naseer Khan by the Returning Officer of PP-113 Narowal-11, they are being disposed of together.
2. In all these cases the acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondents has been questioned. The impugned orders in all the cases show that the appellants had not raised objections at the time of scrutiny. According to the provisions of subsection (5) of section 14 of the Representation of the A People Act (No.1XXXV of 1976), as substituted by Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance (No. V of 1990), only that candidate or voter can file appeal against the acceptance of the nomination papers,-who had raised objection at the time of the scrutiny. For ready reference the provisions of subsection (5) of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are being noted hereunder, printed. in Statute Part of PLD 1991: "(5) A candidate, or an elector who had filed an objection to the nomination of a candidate, may prefer an appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or, as the case may be, accepting the nomination papers of the candidate to the Tribunal constituted for the constituency to which - the nomination relates and consisting of the Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the President; and such appeal shall be summarily decided within such time as may be notified by the Commission and any order passed thereon shall be final." It is apparent from the above provisions that the appeals filed by the appellants who had not raised any objection at the time of scrutiny of the acceptance of the nomination papers were not competent. Although the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that their clients had raised objections but we are unable to consider the argument as presumption of truth is attached to the regularity of the proceedings recorded by the learned Returning Officer. We also cannot resort to recording evidence as it is provided that the appeals shall be disposed of summarily.
3. As a result, all the appeals stand dismissed being incompetent. H.B.T./105/E Appeals dismissed.