SANAULLAH ZEHRI versus RETURNING OFFICER (JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE),. KHUZDAR
Representation of Section 8 of the People Act 1976 The transfer of the polling station from one place to another was reportedly due to pressure from the local polling station to prove such allegation that neither the presiding officer had been made a party nor Was presented as a witness. A member of the local administration was presented in support of the allegation that the polling station had been moved because of pressure. No allegation was made that fewer votes were cast because of the change / change of the polling station which materially affected the election. Voting rights were not lost due to such change / change of polling station No presiding officer or returning officer was charged in connection with changing / changing the polling station. Was not charged with any misconduct or illegal conduct. Nor was he identified in his opinion and was not accompanied by any voter before me that he was deprived of his right to vote. It is not enough to prove that the election was materially affected by the change of Kriska or the polling station. Compliance or some irregularities were made by the election staff but it had to be proved with the affirmation that the election was materially affected by the act, the petitioner had to be established. Violation of the Supply of Public Representation Act, 1976 was committed. And such space
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
