2001 PLP 902 (CLC)
WAQAR HUSSAIN BUTT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 2001 PLP 902 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | WAQAR HUSSAIN BUTT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections‑Ordinance (V of 2000)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 902 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections‑Ordinance (V of 2000)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 902 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 902 (CLC) (WAQAR HUSSAIN BUTT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.A. Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Disqualification of candidate and rejection of nomination papers‑‑‑Nomination papers filed by candidate were rejected by Returning Officer on the ground that Matric Certificate relied upon by him was bogus‑‑‑Returning Officer had made sufficient enquiry with reference to the record of the relevant Board of Education and also the school record of the candidate and found the certificate bogus on the basis of said record‑‑ Nomination papers of candidate, had rightly been rejected by Returning Officer on basis of the allegation against him. Muhammad Jehangir Wahla, A.A.‑G. (on Court's call).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Disqualification of candidate and rejection of nomination papers‑‑‑Nomination papers filed by candidate were rejected by Returning Officer on the ground that Matric Certificate relied upon by him was bogus‑‑‑Returning Officer had made sufficient enquiry with reference to the record of the relevant Board of Education and also the school record of the candidate and found the certificate bogus on the basis of said record‑‑ Nomination papers of candidate, had rightly been rejected by Returning Officer on basis of the allegation against him. C.A. Rehman for Petitioner. Muhammad Jehangir Wahla, A.A.‑G. (on Court's call). As per contents of this writ petition; the petitioner to contest election to a seat of Nazim in U.C. No.43 filed forms alongwith Muhammad Tariq Gujjar for Naib‑Nazim. Respondent No.3 objected that Matric Certificate of said Tariq Gujjar is bogus. Learned R.O. rejected the papers holding that the certificate relied upon by said Tariq is bogus. Appeal filed by said Tariq was dismissed by learned D.R.O., Gujranwala vide order, dated 10‑3‑2001 for non‑prosecution.
2. Learned counsel contends that the learned R.O. could not have held the certificate to be bogus in summary proceedings of the nature of scrutiny of the nomination papers.
3. I have examined the order of the learned R.O. in the light of the said contention. I find that the learned R.O. had made sufficient enquiry with reference to the record of the relevant Board as also the school record of the said Tariq. I may state here that in number of cases I had come across fake certificates being pressed into service by the candidates for the said seats. I have also noted that somehow or other Educational Board had managed to maintain secrecy regarding the serial numbers against which certificates are to be issued to the students who are declared to have passed the examination. The unscrupulous employees of the Board do manage to issue fake certificates but more often than not are unable to trace correct serial' numbers. In this case in hand also said Tariq Gujjar has been caught by the learned R.O. at what, prima facie, appears to be a fraud, by discovering that the genuine certificate had been issued at serial number different from the one appearing on the certificate being relied upon by said Tariq Gujjar. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in liming. H.B.T./W‑21/L Petition dismissed.