Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HASHIM MULLAH VS Respondent: RETURNING OFFICER, EBRAHIM HYDRI UNION COUNCIL
P L D 1960 (W
P L D 1960 (W. P.) Karachi 233
Before G. B. Constantine and A. S. Faruqui, JJ
HASHIM MULLAH‑Petitioner
versus
RETURNING OFFICER, EBRAHIM HYDRI UNION COUNCIL and others‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 327 of 1959, decided on 21st December 1959.
Basic Democracies (Federal Capital) Election Rules, 1959, r. 14‑Defect in naming Basic Democracy in nomination papers‑ Not of substantial character‑Constitution of Pakistan, (1956) Art. 170.
Abdul Latif Munshi for Petitioner.
S. A. Nusrat for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Ali Akbar for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 21st December 1959.
JUDGMENT
CONSTANTINE, J.‑In this case the petitioner was a candidate for a Ward of the Ebrahim Hydri Union Council. His nomina tion paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that he had not signed or affixed his thumb‑impression where it is first required in the form, namely, at the end of the description of the candidate in paragraph 2. In revision this ground of rejection was set aside by the Collector, since the signature of the candidate appeared at the end of the form under the declaration.
The other ground for rejection of the nomination paper was that the name of the Basic Democracy had not been correctly given and that the constituency could not be ascertained from the nomination form. If this reasoning had been correct, it would have been an error of a substantial character, but since it is not disputed by the respondents that the name of the Ward had been given and that this Ward could refer to no other Basic Democracy other than the Ebrahim Hydri Union Council, we think that this ground was bad and that the defect in naming the Basic Democracy was not of a substantial character. Since the rules require that no nomination paper shall be rejected on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character, we think that the Collector in his revision order, as well as the Returning Officer in the original order, has committed an error of law patent on the face of the record, and that this error of law should be corrected by us in this writ petition.
We therefore direct that the Returning Officer do allow the petitioner an opportunity to correct the defect under Rule 14 of 8 the Basic Democracies (Federal Capital) Election Rules, 1959.
The petitioner undertakes that he will appear before the Returning Officer at 1 p.m. today for this purpose.
The Returning Officer will, if the petitioner so appears, make arrangements for the election.
As regards the costs of this petition we think that since the origin of the petition was the negligence of the petitioner in the first place, respondent 3 must be paid his costs of appearance by the petitioner, but since respondents 1 and 2 did not appreciate the correct law, we think that there should be no order of costs as between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2.
K. M. A.
Petition accepted.