Find a Lawyer

ALI MUHAMMAD MARR1 versus PROVINCE OF SINDH

r, 18 (5) 8c51 (5) om nomination papers, - Examining appeals under CR18 (5) Cr51 (5) of Sindh Local Council (Election) Rules, 2015 in Discrimination RR Appeal under (18) against the Returning Officer's decision in regard to accepting or rejecting the nomination papers, without specifying who can file it. However, under R-51 (5), an appeal can be filed only by a candidate whose papers were rejected. [P262] A

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 258

Present: Amir Hani Muslim,

Qazi Faez Isa and Faisal Arab, JJ

ALI MUHAMMAD MARR1—Petitioner

versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH and others—Respondents

Civil Petition No.703-K of 2016, decided on 8th March, 2017.

(On appeal against the judgment dated 29-9-2016 passed by the High Court of Sindh Circuit Court, Hyderabad in C.P. No.D-1075/16).

(a) Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015—

—Rr, 18(5) 8c 51(5)—Nomination papers, scrutiny of—Appeals under R.18(5) Si R.51(5) of the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015—Distinction—Appeal under R.18(5) laid against a decision of the Returning Officer with regard to accepting or rejecting the nomination papers, without specifying who may file it; whereas, under R,51(5) the appeal could only be filed by a candidate whose nomination papers had been rejected. [p. 262] A

(b) Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015—

—R, 18(5)—Nomination papers, scrutiny of—Appeal against decision of Returning Officer—Necessary . parties as respondents—Scope-Rule 18(5) of Sindh Local Council (Election) Rules, 2015 did not require that the (Election Commission of Pakistan’ and or the Returning Officer be arrayed as respondents—Appellant could not be non-suited on such ground. [p. 262] B

(c) Sindh Local Government Act (XLI1 of 2013)—

—Ss. 2(xxxv-a) & 18(2)(d)—Local Government Elections—Reserved seat for ‘labourer’—Eligibility—Candidate who contested election for reserved seat of labourer’ worked in a foreign Bank as an Assistant Relationship Manager and was paid a fairly substantial salary—Such candidate could not be termed as a ‘labourer’ on the basis that he perfÓrm;ed a clerical job—When a person falsely projected himself to belong to a weak, vulnerable or under represented class, and captured a seat reserved for such persons he deprived those that the law had sought to protect and promote—Supreme Court directed that'the respondent should immediately be de-notified from the reserved seat of labourer {peasant, and the said reserved seat should be filled-in as per law—Appeal was allowed accordingly with costs in the sum of twenty thousand rupees on the respondent since an advantage, not otherwise available to him, was blatantly sought and obtained and a genuine labourer {peasant was deprived of his/her right, [pp.263, 264] C, F & G

(d) Constitution of Pakistan—

—Arts. 32, 34 & 36—Concept of reserved seats’in elections— Scope—Elections were contested on the basis of adult franchise however reserved seats were introduced to enable certain categories of persons who may not otherwise be able to compete fairly, including women, peasants, workers and non-Muslims—Reserved seats could be categorized as a fÓrm; of compensatory justice aimed at alleviating deprivations, not at the cost of others but to create a level playing field, (pp. 263. 264] D&E

Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Muhammad Umar Lakhani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.5.

Date of hearing: 8th March, 2017

how to become a advocate from FR Tank / DI Khan lawyer