SARDAR SARFRAZ AHMAD CHEEMA versus RETURNING OFFICER
Arts 63 (1) (n) and 199 Representation Public Act (LXXXV of 1976), Sections 14 and 12 (2), Explanation (ii) Parliament's eligibility for membership (Council of Council) Nomination papers, Minority interest in the company Returning Officer and Election Tribunal rejected the candidate's nomination regarding the Scope's nomination for a shareholding, company guarantee guarantee, and on the basis that he was a shareholder in the company that defaulted. Was. Loan repayment holds only 24% stake in the candidate company, therefore, it did not have control or majority interest in the company under section 12, section 12 of Explanation (ii) of the Representation People Act, 1976. Considering the language of Article (63 (1) n) of the Constitution, the candidate under consideration cannot be considered as irresponsible liability of Rs. 2 lakh or more, moreover, it is hoped that the candidate was a Returning Officer. And the bail orders approved by the election tribunal were set aside and the returning officer was instructed to list the candidates in the list of eligible candidates.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
