2006 PLP 750 (YLR)
ABDUL WAJID RASOOL — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, MUZAFFARGARH and 2
| Citation | 2006 PLP 750 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL WAJID RASOOL — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, MUZAFFARGARH and 2 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 750 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 750 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 750 (YLR) (ABDUL WAJID RASOOL — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, MUZAFFARGARH and 2). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner filed his nomination papers to contest the seat of worker and in the accompanying statement of assets, he wrote 'N.A." meaning "Not applicable"; these were objected by respondent No.3 on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of 162 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land situated in Mauza Jarh. Be that as it may, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers but on appeal of respondent No.3, which was accepted, the nomination papers have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of concealing the assets, which he had to disclose in the statement to be filed along with the nomination papers.
2. When questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he is the owner of 162 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land. It is further admitted that this fact was not disclosed in the statement of assets but the argument that the petitioner was under the impression, that as he is contesting the election for the seat of worker, therefore, disclosure of the assets was not required; this is absolutely misconceived. In law, as the nomination papers of the petitioner were not complete without the true statement of assets, therefore, on this reasoning too, his nomination papers were liable to be rejected, resultantly, I do not find any error in the impugned order, calling for interference in my constitutional jurisdiction. Dismissed. H.B.T./A-616/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.