Appeal before Election Tribunal

Words "information" or "material" used in S. 14(5-A) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 meant information or material which could not be brought before the Returning Officer, and earlier information or material which was examined by the Returning Officer but was not considered

Where some fresh information was received before the decision of appeal that information and material could be examined by the Tribunal, hence construction of S. 14(5-A) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 was that it was an addition to the facts and law examined by the Returning Officer

Election Tribunal would not consider appeal in terms of S. 14(5-A) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 in the absence of any fresh information or material.

Returning Officer found appellant not sagacious, righteous, upright, trustworthy, honest and Ameen on basis of judgments of Supreme Court and High Court and secret letter written by appellant to influence the Supreme Court

Validity

Election Tribunal in appeal could not sit over such judgments

Appellant was not qualified to contest election in view of declarations and of directions given against him in such judgments

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant's objection was that first respondent was Member of Area Water Board constituted under Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Area Water Board) Rules, 2005, whereas second respondent was elected Chairman of "Khal Panchayat" under Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Pilot Farmers Organizations) Rules, 2005 framed under Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority Act, 1997, thus, both being covered by definition of "civil servant" had been disqualified by Election Tribunal to contest election in year 2008; and that such judgment of Tribunal had been upheld by Supreme Court

Order of Returning Officer accepting nomination papers of respondents was assailed

Validity

Sole purpose of legislature to frame Rules was to involve farmers of an area in irrigation system in order to fetch better output

Neither authority had appointed respondents nor were they employee of authority or holding such offices for wholetime, rather they had been performing their functions as elected members of farmers

Nothing was available on record to show that respondents had been paid any remuneration

Respondents could not be termed to be in "service of Pakistan" in terms of Art. 260 of the Constitution

Election Tribunal dismissed appeal in circumstances.

Appellant's objection was that respondent-candidate was not a righteous, honest or Ameen person as he was disqualified earlier by Election Tribunal to contest elections in years 2002 and 2008 for having produced fake and forged degrees

Rejection of appellant's objection petition by Returning Officer

Validity

Tribunal in earlier election petitions filed against respondent in years 2002 and 2008 had declared him as imposter due to filing forged degrees

Respondent despite disqualified by Tribunal in year 2002, instead of repenting and mending his ways after year 2002, had repeated same wrongful act in election of 2008

Election Tribunal accepted appeal, resultantly appellant's objection petition stood accepted and respondent's nomination papers stood rejected in circumstances

Principles.