AIRLINK 155.38 Increased By ▲ 3.26 (2.14%)
BOP 9.69 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (6.25%)
CNERGY 7.11 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.28%)
CPHL 84.07 Increased By ▲ 1.78 (2.16%)
FCCL 43.44 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (1.47%)
FFL 14.79 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (4.08%)
FLYNG 30.31 Increased By ▲ 1.72 (6.02%)
HUBC 136.24 Increased By ▲ 4.30 (3.26%)
HUMNL 12.51 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (2.29%)
KEL 4.02 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.5%)
KOSM 5.02 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (2.24%)
MLCF 69.44 Increased By ▲ 2.39 (3.56%)
OGDC 203.25 Increased By ▲ 2.87 (1.43%)
PACE 5.06 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.4%)
PAEL 42.50 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (2.41%)
PIAHCLA 16.57 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (2.16%)
PIBTL 8.79 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (4.39%)
POWER 13.93 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (6.74%)
PPL 150.83 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (1.5%)
PRL 28.91 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (4.33%)
PTC 20.73 Increased By ▲ 1.27 (6.53%)
SEARL 84.04 Increased By ▲ 2.07 (2.53%)
SSGC 40.25 Increased By ▲ 2.98 (8%)
SYM 14.83 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (3.13%)
TELE 6.98 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.35%)
TPLP 8.27 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.6%)
TRG 64.05 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (1.46%)
WAVESAPP 8.57 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (6.59%)
WTL 1.27 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.6%)
YOUW 3.42 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (2.09%)
AIRLINK 155.38 Increased By ▲ 3.26 (2.14%)
BOP 9.69 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (6.25%)
CNERGY 7.11 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.28%)
CPHL 84.07 Increased By ▲ 1.78 (2.16%)
FCCL 43.44 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (1.47%)
FFL 14.79 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (4.08%)
FLYNG 30.31 Increased By ▲ 1.72 (6.02%)
HUBC 136.24 Increased By ▲ 4.30 (3.26%)
HUMNL 12.51 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (2.29%)
KEL 4.02 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.5%)
KOSM 5.02 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (2.24%)
MLCF 69.44 Increased By ▲ 2.39 (3.56%)
OGDC 203.25 Increased By ▲ 2.87 (1.43%)
PACE 5.06 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.4%)
PAEL 42.50 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (2.41%)
PIAHCLA 16.57 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (2.16%)
PIBTL 8.79 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (4.39%)
POWER 13.93 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (6.74%)
PPL 150.83 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (1.5%)
PRL 28.91 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (4.33%)
PTC 20.73 Increased By ▲ 1.27 (6.53%)
SEARL 84.04 Increased By ▲ 2.07 (2.53%)
SSGC 40.25 Increased By ▲ 2.98 (8%)
SYM 14.83 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (3.13%)
TELE 6.98 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.35%)
TPLP 8.27 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.6%)
TRG 64.05 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (1.46%)
WAVESAPP 8.57 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (6.59%)
WTL 1.27 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.6%)
YOUW 3.42 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (2.09%)
BR100 12,160 Increased By 383.7 (3.26%)
BR30 35,356 Increased By 946.7 (2.75%)
KSE100 114,114 Increased By 2787.4 (2.5%)
KSE30 34,917 Increased By 924.3 (2.72%)

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.