2005 PLP 1876 (CLC)
Mst. SAFIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER, DARGAI and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1876 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan and Salim Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAFIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER, DARGAI and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Elections Rules, 2000 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1876 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Elections Rules, 2000 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1876 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan and Salim Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1876 (CLC) (Mst. SAFIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER, DARGAI and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Haroon Iqbal for Petitioner .
- Saeed Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 16 & 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of nomination papers
Name, parentage and number in the voters list of proposer and seconder as well as name of Union Council and the ward had been left blank in nomination papers of candidate
Some signatures were at the space meant for the proposer, but no signatures or thumb-impression was found at the space meant for the seconder
Such were exemplary incomplete nomination papers which merited rejection, and were thus rightly rejected and appeal also failed
Petitioner was not a properly nominated candidate as no proof was on record to show as to who were proposer and seconder of candidate
Time limit had been fixed for submission of complete nomination papers, but candidate failed to find out a proposer and a seconder for herself at proper time
Candidate could not be given extended time to fill up the lacunae
Other candidates were not made parties to the proceedings by the candidate
Valuable right having accrued to other candidates by rejection of nomination papers of candidate, they could not be condemned unheard.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
Mst. Safia Bibi came to this Court with the present writ petition with a request that her nomination papers be accepted because her proposer had signed her nomination papers and the non-filing of the nomination papers was merely an irregularity. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General for the official respondents, on notice by the Court, and perused the record.
2. The name, parentage and number in the voters list of they proposer and the seconder as well as the name of the Union Council and the Ward have been left blank in the nomination papers. There is some signature at the space meant for the proposer, but there is no signature or thumb-impression at the space meant for the seconder. This is an exemplary incomplete nomination paper and merited rejection, which was done. The appeal was also properly dismissed.
3. The petitioner was not a properly nominated candidate. There was no proof on record that who was her proposer or seconder. A time limit had been fixed for submission of complete nomination papers, but the petitioner failed to find out a proposer and a seconder for herself at the proper time. She could not be given extended time to fill up the lacunae. The other candidates are not made parties to the proceedings by the petitioners, but valuable rights have accrued to those candidates by the rejection of nomination papers of the present petitioner. They cannot be condemned unheard.
3. We do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed. H.B.T./491/P Petition dismissed.