2005 PLP 1855 (CLC)
Sardar HAROONUR RASHID and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1855 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sardar HAROONUR RASHID and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Local Government Ordinance (XIV of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1855 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Local Government Ordinance (XIV of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1855 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1855 (CLC) (Sardar HAROONUR RASHID and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. Ghulam Basit for Petitioners.
- Saeed Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
- 3. The learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Haripur came to the conclusion that the defect in the assets declaration form furnished by the appellants was neither intentional nor for any ulterior motive. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Returning Officer. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General for the official respondents, and the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4, on notice by the Court. We also perused the record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 152(1)(i)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination papers
Nomination papers of candidates were rejected on the objection petition of petitioners on the ground that they had concealed their assets
Returning Officer discussed case of one candidate and did not discuss case of the other
No appeal or cross-objection having been filed against order of Returning Officer, case of said other candidate was not discussed at appellate stage also
Such point could not also be discussed for the first time in Constitutional petition
District Returning Officer in appeal came to the conclusion that defect in Assets Declaration Form furnished by candidates was neither intentional nor for any ulterior motive
District Returning Officer accepted appeal and set aside impugned order
Being a question of fact, District Returning Officer had made up his opinion on the basis of record
When more than one opinion could be formed on the basis of certain facts at the original or appellate stage and one of such opinions had been formed by a competent forum at that stage, then opinion formed while dealing with Constitutional petition, could not be substituted for such an opinion
Opinion formed by District Returning Officer, on basis of solid reasons, could not be interfered with in Constitutional petition, as recording of full evidence and going deep into merits and demerits of the case, was out of scope of constitutional petition.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
Sardar Haroonur Rashid and Professor Muhammad Din have brought this writ petition against Muhammad Anwar, Sayyed Zahoor Hussain Shah and four others. They contended that the nomination papers of respondents Nos.1 and 2 were rejected on the objection petition of the petitioners on the ground that the respondents had concealed their assets. The objection petition was submitted, in fact, by Sardar Haroonur Rashid,, petitioner No. 1, in which he had not joined his co-candidate with him. The learned Returning Officer discussed the case of Muhammad Anwar, respondent No. 1, and did not discuss the case of Sayed Zahoor Hussain Shah.
2. As there is no appeal or cross-objection by the present petitioners against the order of the learned Returning Officer concerning respondent No.2, therefore, the case of respondent No.2 was not discussed at the appellate stage, and hence, the case of respondent No.2 cannot be discussed at this stage for the first time.
3. The learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Haripur came to the conclusion that the defect in the assets declaration form furnished by the appellants was neither intentional nor for any ulterior motive. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Returning Officer. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General for the official respondents, and the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4, on notice by the Court. We also perused the record.
4. Being a question of fact, the learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Haripur, had made up his opinion on the basis of the record. When more than one opinion can be formed on the basis of certain facts at the original or appellate stage, and one of such opinions has been formed by a competent Forum at that stage, an opinion formed while dealing with writ petition cannot be substituted for such an opinion. The opinion formed by the learned District Returning Officer/ District and Sessions Judge, Haripur, has been formed on the basis of solid reasons.
5. The stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers may attract the proceedings of summary inquiry and same proceedings can also be conducted at the appellate stage and it is to be seen whether the case, prima facie, is in favour of the candidate, whose nomination papers are under consideration, is against him. The learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge reached to the conclusion that the case was, prima facie in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 as detailed inquiry, recording of full evidence and going deep into merits and demerits of the case are out of the scope of process of scrutiny of the nomination papers as well as out of the scope of writ petition.
6. We find no merit in the present writ petition, and we dismiss it. H.B.T./489/P Petition dismissed.