Sections 2 (iii), 2 (IV), 2 (viii), 54 (a) and 63 hold the General Election Order [7 of 2002], in the row of candidates participating in the Article 8 F Election Petition Failure was the implication for the minority seat. Suspended by the applicant, who was one of the candidates, the Election Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that all contesting candidates were not included in the queue because the petition submitted by the applicant. The respondents were only party to the return candidates, which was according to the provisions of Article 8F of the General Election Order, 2002, the law of accuracy did not create any exception in favor of the election applicant. Whereby they are required to enter into all competing candidates within the meaning of Section 2 (viii) of the Public Representation Act. I have not found. , 1976, which did not withdraw its candidate as respondents to its election petition if there was a dispute about seats reserved for non-Muslims whose non-compliance resulted in section 44 of the Public Representation Act, 1976 (A) The Election Tribunal was rightly dismissed by the Election Tribunal request; the Supreme Court refused to interfere in the Election Tribunal's decision.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
