2003 PLP 230 (MLD)
ASIF KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 230 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ. |
| Parties | ASIF KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 230 (MLD)?
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 2003 PLP 230 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 230 (MLD) (ASIF KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 4th September, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.12, 13 & 14‑‑‑Rejection of Nomination Papers‑‑‑Nomination papers of candidate were rejected on the ground that his proposer did not belong, to the constituency from which candidate was contesting election and had filed nomination papers‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provisions of S.12(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 had mandated that any elector of a constituency could propose or second the name of any duly qualified person to be a Member for that constituency‑‑‑Mandatory provision of law having not been complied with, nomination papers of candidate were rightly rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 4th September, 2002. Appellant's Nomination Papers stand rejected on the ground that his proposer did not belong to the Constituency from which he sought I election and filed Nomination Papers.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a sitting Nazim of the Union Council, that the Constituency No.PP‑34, Sargodha-VII was the constituted in February/March, 2002 alongwith many others and the appellant had a bona fide mistake about the Constituency where the appellant's proposer had been enrolled and Therefore, he should.not be ousted to contest the Elections merely on a technical ground. He further added that the expression "may" in section 14(3) is directory and not mandatory.
3. Section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 mandates that : "Any elector of a constituency may propose or second the name of any duly qualified person to be a member for that constituency. " The constituency stands defined in section 2 of the Act and admittedly the proposer did not belong to the constituency from which the appellant wanted to contest section 14(3)(c) of the afore‑referred Act mandates that the Returning Officer may of his own motion or upon the objection raised by any person, reject the Nomination Papers inter alia on the ground : "Any provision of section 12 or section 13 has not been complied with (or submits any false or incorrect declaration or statement, in any material particular);"
4. Admittedly, the proposer is not enrolled in PP‑34 in which the appellant had filed his Nomination Papers. The expression "may" appearing in section 14(3)(c) of the Act is mandatory otherwise it would frustrate the very purpose of section 12 and other related sections. In the afore‑referred circumstances, we do riot find any illegality in the impugned order to warrant interference. This appeal having no merits is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑628/L Appeal dismissed.