2008 PLP 632 (SCMR)
NAEEM AHMAD BHATTI and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 632 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | NAEEM AHMAD BHATTI and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2001 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 632 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2001 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 632 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 632 (SCMR) (NAEEM AHMAD BHATTI and others — Petitioners Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saif-ul-Malook, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4.
- Mian Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 16 & 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Rejection of nomination papers
Nomination papers filed by petitioners for seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim, were accepted by Returning Officer and appeal filed by respondents against such acceptance was dismissed by District Returning Officer
Such concurrent orders were set aside by High Court vide impugned order on the ground that one petitioner was not qualified to contest elections as Matriculation Certificate issued to him by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, allegedly was a forged document
Petitioners had filed petition against said impugned order of High Court
Petitioner, on Court query, had submitted that he was prepared to face criminal proceedings in case Matriculation Certificate placed by him on record, was found to be forged
Prima facie, substance was in the submission made by petitioner that Matriculation Certificate placed on record by him could not be declared as forged in constitutional jurisdiction in absence of any unimpeachable evidence and a finding of fact by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction
Notice was directed to Chairman of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education to cause production of original record pertaining to certificate of Secondary School Examination for the relevant year
Meanwhile, petitioners were provisionally allowed to contest elections.
Judgment & Decree
Leave is sought against the judgment dated 3-8-2005 passed by a learned, Judge of Lahore High Court vide which respondents, constitutional petition was allowed and the nomination papers of the petitioners for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No.59, District Vehari were rejected.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioners filed nomination papers for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim for the afore-referred Union Council which were accepted by the Returning Officer vide the order, dated 23-7-2005 and appeal against the same filed by the respondents was dismissed by the District Returning Officer on 26-7-2005. These concurrent orders have been set aside by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide the impugned judgment. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to petitioners' nomination papers which has persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned judgment was that petitioner No.1 is not qualified to contest the elections as the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is allegedly a forged document.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is a matriculate; that the certificate issued by the concerned Board was a genuine document which has been disbelieved by the High Court on a subjective consideration. He lastly contended that once the election schedule has been announced and the nomination papers stand accepted by the competent Tribunals i.e. the Returning Officer and the District Returning Officer, the High Court cannot, in writ jurisdiction, reject the same and annul the concurrent orders.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents who appeared for the caveator defended the impugned order by submitting that the Matriculation Certificate obtained by petitioner No.1 is a forged document which is evident from endorsement made by the said Board that they had not issued the certificate being relied upon by petitioner No.1.
5. On Court query, petitioner submitted that he is prepared to face criminal proceedings in case the Matriculation Certificate, he had placed on record, is found to be forged prima facie, there is substance in the submission made by the petitioners' learned counsel that the Matriculation Certificate placed on record by petitioner No. 1 could not be declared as forged in constitutional jurisdiction in absence of any unimpeachable evidence and a finding of fact by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
6. Notice. A notice shall also be issued to the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad Sindh to cause the production of original record pertaining to Certificate No.A-20433, Group "General" Seat No.85286 (Secondary School Examination 1994) on the next date of hearing to be fixed by the office. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1154-L of 2005.
7. Meanwhile, petitioners are provisionally allowed to contest the election. H.B.T./N-72/SC Order accordingly.