2006 PLP 1963 (YLR)
GUL MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue) — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1963 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue) — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1963 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1963 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1963 (YLR) (GUL MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue) — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr.12 & 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination papers
Petitioner's nomination papers were rejected on the ground that proposer of petitioner who was also contesting the election was not present at the time of scrutiny
Appeal filed by petitioner against order of rejection was also dismissed
Rule 14 of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005, did not require mandatory presence of either proposer of seconder at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers
Scrutiny was a process for convenience of candidate, proposers, seconder and voters to raise any objection, if they so desired
No objection having been raised by contesting candidates, in that respect, petition was allowed with direction to the Returning Officer to allow petitioner to contest election. PLD 1984 (Journal) 154 ref. Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Addl. A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel has filed this writ petition. According to him petitioner's nomination papers were rejected by respondent No.2 on 31-7-2005 on the ground that proposer of the candidate who is also contesting election was not present at the time of scrutiny. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1, which was also dismissed on 2-8-2005. The respondents were noticed on 10-8-2005, to contest the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner today i.e. 15-8-2005. None of the respondents have entered appearance. Hence this matter cannot be delayed any more and is being decided.
2. Impending elections are scheduled for 25-8-2005. Learned counsel refers PLD 1984 (Journal) 154, wherein it was held that presence of candidate, propose or secondary at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers is not necessary. Scrutiny has been dealt under Rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 which requires that scrutiny of nomination papers shall be open to the candidates, their election agents, proposes and secondary, or the persons who made representations or objections against the nomination papers, and any voters of the local area concerned who obtain permission from the Returning Officer, before the commencement of the scrutiny, and the Returning Officer shall give all those present reasonable opportunity for examining all nomination papers delivered to him under rule 12, sub-rule (2) requires that the R.O. shall, in the presence of the persons -attending the scrutiny under sub-rule (1), examine the nomination papers and decide any objection raised by any such person to any nomination. Rule 14 does not require mandatory presence of either of the persons mentioned above. The scrutiny is a process for the convenience of candidates, proposers, secondary and voters to raise any objection if they so desire.
3. In the present case, incidentally, no objection was raised by the contesting candidates. The proposer in whose absence the nomination papers were rejected is present in Court, and endorsed the fact that he has proposed the candidate. In view of the contents of rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005 and case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed. The Returning Officer is directed to allow the petitioner to contest election and in this regard, he will be allowed to avail all the facilities provided under the law. The impugned orders of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are set aside. H.B.T./G-26/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.