MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD
RR 61 (2) and 68 (1) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Constitutional Petition under the North-West Frontier Provincial Local Government R61 (2), excluding the receipt of a fee, not an election application. do. The Election Rules, 2005, had legal terms with the Election Petition along with the submission and receipt of a fee of Rs 3000 and that the Tribunal has the authority to exclude the election application under R68 (1) of the said Rules, But the election petition was dismissed. The key is not the only option. The word `may be exercised in the North-West Frontier Province Local Government (Election Conduct) Rules, 2005, KR 61 (2), in the case of arbitrary power and whenever an arbitrary authority was granted to a tribunal. In order to be used judicially in keeping with the general principles of law, it was a matter of payment of fees for the benefit of the Election Commission of Pakistan and the primary purpose of R 61 (2) of the Rules. For the Election Commission to receive revenue, prior to applying the amendment clause contained in R68 (1) of the Election Rules 2005, it should have followed the general principles of payment and receipt of court fees, using arbitrary jurisdiction. Applying and excluding the penalty clause. Under R68 (1) of the Election Rules 2005, the Election Petition, Proprietary Rule has demanded that the notice of caution should be given to the applicants by the Election Tribunal so that they could make good fees within a reasonable time. And in the event of non-compliance, the penalty clause could have been properly applied, at the time of receipt of the election petition, to detect a mistake in not filing a fee.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
