1998 PLP 1054 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD TAUQEER KHIZARZAI‑‑‑Appellant Versus Malik SULTAN MEHMUD HANJRA and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1054 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdur Razzaq and Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAUQEER KHIZARZAI‑‑‑Appellant Versus Malik SULTAN MEHMUD HANJRA and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1054 (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 1998 PLP 1054 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdur Razzaq and Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1054 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD TAUQEER KHIZARZAI‑‑‑Appellant Versus Malik SULTAN MEHMUD HANJRA and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kanwar Intizar Muhammad Khan for Appellant.
- Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana for Respondent No. 1.
- Khan Dil Muhammad for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 7th January, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 14(5)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 62 & 63‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of respondents on the ground of failing to meet the requirements of Arts. 62 & 63 of the Constitution (1973)‑‑‑Perusal of impugned order showed that all the grounds in appeal upon which rejection of nomination papers of respondents was being sought were never raised before Returning Officer, therefore, he was justified in accepting nomination papers of respondents vide order in question‑‑‑Order of Returning Officer whereby he accepted nomination papers of respondents was, thus, not open to interference.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana for Respondent No.
1. Khan Dil Muhammad for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 7th January, 1997. SH. ABDUR RAZZAQ, J. ‑‑‑By this appeal order dated 27‑12‑1996 has been assailed whereby the Returning Officer PP 213 M' Garh accepted the nomination papers of respondents.
2. It is submitted by the appellant that the nomination papers of the respondents have been accepted but they do not qualify under provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. That both the respondents are commonly known violator of Islamic injunctions and they have got no adequate knowledge of Islamic teaching. That Returning Officer was bound to consider the objections raised by the appellant but due to influence of respondents he did not bother to mention these objections in the order of acceptance. That participation of the respondents in the forthcoming election will be in violation of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He, thus, prayed that appeal may be accepted and respondents may be declared to be disqualified for contesting the coming election
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. They have submitted that both the respondents are true Muslims and they have not committed any act violating the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. That no cogent evidence has either been produced or referred by the appellant whereby it can be inferred that respondents have been found violating the provisions of Articles 62 and 6.3 That no such objections were raised before the Returning Officer at the time of conducting scrutiny of the nomination papers.
4. Both the respondents have filed their nomination papers before the Returning Officer who accepted the same and a perusal of the impugned order shows that no such objections, as raised in the present appeal, were ever agitated before the Returning Officer. It is, thus clear that all the grounds upon which rejection of nomination papers of the respondents have been sought are an after thought. The Returning Officer was justified in accepting the nomination papers of the respondents vide order under appeal. There is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. A.A./166/E Appeal dismissed.