Find a Lawyer

QAYYUM AZAM KHAN versus RETURNING OFFICER/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PP-272, DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR

Representation of sections 12, 14 (5) and 99 (1) (a) (g) of the Public Act 1976, holding of the General Election Order, 2002 [Chief Executive Order No. 7 of 2002], Article 8D (2) (g) The nomination of the papers was rejected by the rejection of the Appeals Returning Officer on the basis that he was sentenced by the High Court in a criminal case for defaming the judiciary and thus, he was found to be in the Code of Conduct for the General Election Order 8D. (2) (g) are disqualified. In 2002, the appellants claimed that they had sought unconditional apology and threw themselves at the mercy of the court in contempt of court proceedings, and they had repented and cleared themselves of contempt of court. The appellants also claimed that they had not defamed or acted against the judiciary in recent times. Any discriminatory manner and proceedings against them were past and closed, and the nomination of these papers could not be dismissed on the basis that the appeals affirmed by the High Court were punished in contempt of court by the High Court judges. The fact that there are slogans against slogans, rallies and trying to diminish the integrity and independence of the judiciary is a fact that in recent past the appellants did not defame the judiciary, nomination papers themselves are not sufficient to remove the nomination. Was. The appellants were rejected by the Returning Officer, rightfully so immigration advocates email from More kunda lawyer