1998 PLP 845 (CLC)
AHMAD ALI PAUNTA‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, N.A. 136, MUZAFFARGARH
| Citation | 1998 PLP 845 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD ALI PAUNTA‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, N.A. 136, MUZAFFARGARH |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 845 (CLC)?
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 845 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sheikh 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 845 (CLC) (AHMAD ALI PAUNTA‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, N.A. 136, MUZAFFARGARH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for Appellant.
- Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana and Haji Muhammad Aslam Malik for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.14(5)‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers of respondent ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Appellant had alleged default in payment of tax against respondent‑‑ Representative of Taxation Department had admitted that no amount of tax was outstanding against respondent‑‑‑Such admission alone was sufficient to dislodge appellant‑‑‑Returning Officer, was, thus, justified in accepting nomination papers of respondent on basis of material on record. Muhammad Sultan Salah‑ud‑Din, Stenographer on behalf of Respondent No.
1. Sh. Ghulam Rasool, AETO, Muzaffargarh. Dater of hearing: 6th January, 1997
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Sultan Salah‑ud‑Din, Stenographer on behalf of Respondent No.
1. Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana and Haji Muhammad Aslam Malik for Respondent No.4. Sh. Ghulam Rasool, AETO, Muzaffargarh. Dater of hearing: 6th January, 1997 SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the order, dated 26‑12‑1996 whereby the Returning Officer has accepted the nomination papers of Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi respondent No.4.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the notice issued by Excise and Taxation Officer, Muzaffargarh, a sum of. Rs.3,78,066 is outstanding against respondent No.4 and the said amount has not been paid by him. Accordingly he is a defaulter and his nomination papers should have been rejected by the Returning Officer.
3. On the other hand it is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the concern namely "M/s. Tanvir Imran Cotton Ginning, Pressing and Oil Mills" is owned by Tanvir Imran son of Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 himself has got no concern whatsoever with the said firm. Neither respondent No.4 has got any share in the said concern nor the said concern is being looked after by respondent No.4. Rather said concern is being run by Tanvir Imran who is independent assessee of the Income Tax Department. No amount is outstanding against respondent No.4 and as such the Returning Officer was justified in accepting his nomination paper.
4. It is also stated by Ghulam Rasool, A.E.T.O., that Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi respondent No.4 has not been shown as a partner in the abovesaid concern and that notice has been issued to him simply because he is father of Tanvir Imran and looks after the interest of his son. He states that no amount is outstanding against respondent No.4.
5. The nomination papers of respondent No.4 have been challenged on the ground that Mian Atta Muhammad Qureshi is a defaulter regarding the payment of tax pertaining to the Excise and Taxation Department. As admitted by the representative of Excise and Taxation Department, respondent No.4 has got no interest in the said concern and no amount of the department is outstanding against him. This admission alone is sufficient to dislodge the appellant. Accordingly, it is held that the Returning Officer was justified in accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.4. There is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. A.A./167/E Appeal dismissed