1998 PLP 1056 (MLD)
Sardar YUNAS FAREED KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, PP‑207, MUZAFFARGARH‑2 and 2
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1056 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdur Razzaq and Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, JJ |
| Parties | Sardar YUNAS FAREED KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, PP‑207, MUZAFFARGARH‑2 and 2 |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑, JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1056 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑, JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1056 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdur Razzaq and Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1056 (MLD) (Sardar YUNAS FAREED KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER, PP‑207, MUZAFFARGARH‑2 and 2). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 6th January, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 14(5)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 62 & 63‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant had challenged acceptance of respondent's nomination papers on basis of his default in returning loan amount to various financial institutions‑‑‑Respondent had produced receipts issued by lending financial institutions whereby he had paid entire amount of loan and he had cleared the outstanding amount before the target date‑‑‑Returning Officer on basis of such documentary proof was justified in accepting nomination papers of respondent. Respondent No.4 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for Appellant. Respondent No.4 in person. Date of hearing: 6th January, 1996. SH. ABDUR RAZZAQ, J, ‑‑‑By this appeal order dated 28‑12‑1996 has been assailed whereby the Returning Officer has accepted the nomination paper of respondent No.4.
2. It is submitted by the leaned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.4 is a defaulter of Punjab Small Industries Corporation, House Building Finance Corporation and Regional Development Finance Corporation. His further contention is that respondent No.4 has submitted incorrect affidavit regarding the loan obtained from Punjab Small Industries Corporation as respondent No.4 has disclosed the amount of the said loan as Rs.5 lac whereas as per notice issued by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation dated 14‑12‑1996 the amount outstanding against respondent No.4 is Rs.5,48,
133. He, thus, submits that the impugned order be set aside and the nomination paper of respondent No.4 be ordered to be rejected.
3. On the other hand respondent No.4 has submitted that he had actually got a loan of Rs.5 lac sanctioned from the Punjab Small Industries Corporation vide sanction letter dated 21‑3‑1991. He has produced photostat copy of the said sanction letter. He further submits that he has been paying the instalments and has cleared the outstanding amount on 21‑12‑1996. He has produced photo copy of the receipt dated 21‑12‑1996 issued by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation whereby he has paid Rs.1,70,000 which amount was payable upto 11‑3‑1996. So far as the arrears of the House Building Finance Corporation are concerned, he has produced a certificate issued by the District Manager Muzaffargarh dated 5‑1‑1997 which discloses that no amount is outstanding against him. Regarding the arrears of the Regional Development Finance Corporation he has also produced the record showing that the first instalment is due on 31‑3‑1997. However, he has been making the payment of mark up which was due to him and has cleared the entire amount due, vide receipts dated 31‑10‑1996, 13‑11‑1996 and 17‑11‑1996 and no amount is outstanding against him.
4. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the basis of default in payment of amount which accrues to respondent No.4. As discussed above, it is clear that no amount is outstanding against respondent No.4 either in respect of Punjab Small Industries Corporation, House Building Finance Corporation or Regional Development Finance Corporation. Thus, the said Returning Officer was justified in accepting the nomination paper of respondent No.4. There is no force in this appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed. A.A./165/E Appeal dismissed.