RANA MUHAMMAD TAJAMMAL HUSSAIN versus RANA SHAUKAT MAHMOOD
Sections 12 (1) and 14 (1) (2) Nomination for Selection Appellant was a retired candidate, whose nomination was approved after the nomination papers were endorsed by an election candidate from different constituencies. The Election Tribunal rejected because his papers did not belong to the constituency that belonged to the Election Tribunal, while keeping the elections aside, the authorities were instructed to hold new elections. The point raised was that no such objection was raised at the time of submission of nomination papers. , It may substitute its proposition and other accuracy, in keeping with the intention of the Legislature, that word may be used in section 12 (1) of the Public Representation Act, 1976, as it was required to read. This word can be exchanged with. What, to enhance the intention of the legislature, would ensure that the candidate was bound and required to enter the nomination from the law under the mandatory obligation, the Titansi was formally proposed and endorsed by the voters under which the Representatives Public Act , Shall be strictly banned and shall have a material adverse effect on the election, after the delivery of section 12 (1) of 1976, after which any papers for this schedule are found to be invalid. The same cannot be allowed, even in the exercise of the powers of either the Returning Officer or the Election Tribunal or The High Court or the Supreme Court under Sections 14 (1) and (2) for this matter shall be governed by the refusal to reject the nomination papers on any defects in the powers of the Representation of People Act, 1976.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
