AGL 38.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.21%)
AIRLINK 203.02 Decreased By ▼ -4.75 (-2.29%)
BOP 10.17 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.09%)
CNERGY 6.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-7.63%)
DCL 9.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-4.1%)
DFML 40.02 Decreased By ▼ -1.12 (-2.72%)
DGKC 98.08 Decreased By ▼ -5.38 (-5.2%)
FCCL 34.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-3.82%)
FFBL 86.43 Decreased By ▼ -5.16 (-5.63%)
FFL 13.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.70 (-4.79%)
HUBC 131.57 Decreased By ▼ -7.86 (-5.64%)
HUMNL 14.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.57%)
KEL 5.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-6.03%)
KOSM 7.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-7.51%)
MLCF 45.59 Decreased By ▼ -1.69 (-3.57%)
NBP 66.38 Decreased By ▼ -7.38 (-10.01%)
OGDC 220.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.90 (-0.85%)
PAEL 38.48 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (0.97%)
PIBTL 8.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-3.88%)
PPL 197.88 Decreased By ▼ -7.97 (-3.87%)
PRL 39.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-2.06%)
PTC 25.47 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-4.32%)
SEARL 103.05 Decreased By ▼ -7.19 (-6.52%)
TELE 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.28%)
TOMCL 36.41 Decreased By ▼ -1.80 (-4.71%)
TPLP 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.15%)
TREET 25.12 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-5.03%)
TRG 58.04 Decreased By ▼ -2.50 (-4.13%)
UNITY 33.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-1.38%)
WTL 1.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-9.04%)
BR100 11,890 Decreased By -408.8 (-3.32%)
BR30 37,357 Decreased By -1520.9 (-3.91%)
KSE100 111,070 Decreased By -3790.4 (-3.3%)
KSE30 34,909 Decreased By -1287 (-3.56%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court observed on Thursday that mere absence of the proposer or seconder cannot be a sole ground to reject the nomination papers and directed the returning officer of PP-85 Essa Khail to include the name of the appellant Muhammad Iqbal in the list of eligible candidates.

The court noted that in the present case, neither any objection was filed by any third party nor any inquiry was required to be conducted by the respondent to examine the genuineness of signature of proposer or seconder.

The court allowed the appeal and added that the seconder Muhammad Karim, for whose absence the nomination papers were rejected, has endorsed the fact that he was the seconder of the appellant and his signature marked on the nomination forms are also genuine.

The court said, the word “may” used in Section 62(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, depicts that it is not mandatory for the proposer and seconder to appear before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny and therefore without any objection from any person merely due to absence of the seconder at the time of scrutiny, the nomination papers of the appellant could not be rejected.

The court, however, observed that under Section 62(9) of the Act, the returning officer may, on either of his own motion or upon an objection, conduct a summary enquiry and may reject the nomination papers if he is satisfied with the grounds that the signature of the proposer or seconder are not genuine.

The appellant through this election appeal had challenged the order of returning officer who rejected his nomination papers on the ground that his seconder did not appear at the time of scrutiny of his nomination papers.

The counsel of the appellant submitted that the appellant along with his proposer appeared before the respondent, however, his seconder could not appear because of death of his real uncle. He further submitted that the seconder promised to appear after offering funeral prayer but the respondent without waiting for his seconder rejected his nomination papers though no objection was filed by any person.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.