Find a Lawyer

MIRAJ MUHAMMAD QURESHI versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MIRPUR KHAS

RR 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (4), 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Appeal Nomination Papers rejected by the applicant At the time of scrutiny of the District Council Office, the nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on the basis that the applicant of the applicant's name had earlier proposed the name of another candidate for the same office against which The applicant had filed the petition. The applicant's acknowledgment before the District and Sessions Judge's nomination papers was rejected was that since the other candidate withdrew his nomination papers, the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority had to cancel the nomination papers of the applicants. Was not justified. Using the bar under sub-rule 7 to rule the Sindh Local Government Election Rules 2005, there were also orders to reject the nomination papers, legal, but as a result the applicant was required to participate in the election. Will face technical insufficiency, which is against the spirit of the electoral rules, especially when the other candidate has withdrawn the validity plan for filing his papers, scrutinizing them, etc., which is Sindh Local Government Election. The rules were regulated by Rules 12 to 20 of 2005, with no option to withdraw nomination papers. There was no clause that was once presented to the Returning Officer, especially after the approval and scrutiny of Regulation 16 of the Municipal Elections Rules, 2005, provided the candidate withholding or retiring procedures. The return of the nomination papers was explained online advocate from Khoski lawyer