Find a Lawyer

MIR BEHRAM KHAN MARRI versus MIR GAZAIN

Candidates for nomination papers for Section 14 and 68, representing the Public Act 1976, alleged that the returning candidate, in his two nomination papers, filed his name with different nomination and good intentions in the election list. To be able to name it. And the mark placed on the symbol in this list declared his nomination formally, neither did he raise the objection during the papers nomination scrutiny that had not been made in his presence nor appeal in this regard. Neither the returning candidate, except his title, or the maiden name or his family name, correctly mentioned his real name in the nomination form, as stated in the electoral roll where the candidate had contested Apart from the list, the papers mentioned their title, name or family name in the nomination, by selecting the candidate. Will not be forbidden if a member has correctly mentioned his real name, if the title, name or family name of the candidate mentioned in the nomination papers are different from those on the list of representatives, the Representation Act of 1976 Under Section 14 (ii) of the Act, the Returning Officer was designated to deal with the defect in the nomination papers. For such defect / defect, the Returning Officer did not have the authority to reject the nomination papers, the retired candidate has properly complied with the applicable law and the objection was not raised by the competing candidate at the relevant time. Yes, the Returning Officer has rightly announced the nomination papers of the returning candidate. , go by ask a advocate free from Hangu lawyer