2005 PLP 1864 (CLC)
AURANGZEB and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III, UNION COUNCIL PAWA, ABBOTTABAD and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1864 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AURANGZEB and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III, UNION COUNCIL PAWA, ABBOTTABAD 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 1864 (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 1864 (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 1864 (CLC) (AURANGZEB and another — Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III, UNION COUNCIL PAWA, ABBOTTABAD and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qayum Sarwar for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Saeed Khan, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
- SALIM KHAN, J.---We heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Qayum Sarwar, Advocate, for the petitioners, and Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General for the official respondents, on notice by the Court. We also perused the available record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 152(1)(d)
North-West Frontier Province Elections Rules, 2000, Rr.16 & 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination papers
Nomination papers of candidates for seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council, were rejected on ground that educational certificate of candidate for the seat of Naib Nazim was not found correct
Said candidate had himself admitted in his statement before Election Tribunal that Board Authorities had cancelled his Matriculation Certificate in the year, 1975
Such admission of candidate, prima facie had suggested that he had committed fraud and forgery by producing false and fictitious certificate during previous elections
Candidate, in circumstances had told lie before Returning. Officer as well as before District Returning Officer and telling lie by candidate being a major sin, he was not entitled to contest election
Nomination papers of candidates, were rightly rejected, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
We heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Qayum Sarwar, Advocate, for the petitioners, and Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General for the official respondents, on notice by the Court. We also perused the available record.
2. The nomination papers of Malik Aurangzeb and Aurangzeb candidates for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council, Pawa, District Abbottabad, were rejected on the ground that the certificate of the candidate for the seat of Naib Nazim was not found correct. The detailed order of the learned Returning Officer is dated 31-7-2005. On appeal, the learned District Returning Officer/District and Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, in the light of statement of Aurangzeb, petitioner No. 1, recorded on 18-5-2002 in the previous election petition, came to the conclusion that petitioner No.1 stated that he had passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1975. The learned Returning Officer also referred to the conduct of petitioner No.1 and mentioned that "the candidate further admitted in his statement before Election Tribunal that the Board Authorities had cancelled his certificate for the year 1975 under Roll No.3560. These admissions by the candidate prima facie; suggest that he has committed fraud and forgery by producing false and fictitious certificates during previous elections. Similarly the certificate of the year 1975 which was cancelled by the Board Authorities as forged and fictitious one has been challenged by him before the Civil Court of Abbottabad and prayed for declaration to the effect that the same is correct".
3. As a result of the above, the learned District Returning Officer came to the conclusion that either petitioner No.1 had made false statement between (before) the two competent Forums (in the civil suit and in the election petition), or he was telling lie for the purposes of this election before the learned Returning Officer as well as before the learned District Returning Officer. He, therefore, held that telling lie by petitioner No.1 was a major sin, and, therefore, he was not entitled to contest election. He is supported by the provisions of section 152(1)(d) of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
4. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, we dismiss it. H.B.T./490/P Petition dismissed.