Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAVEED AKHTAR VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 3 others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Kamal Mansur Alam, Amanullah Abbasi Title:MUHAMMAD NAVEED AKHTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 3 others Case No.: Constitutional Petition No, D-703 of 1998 Date of Judgment:- Reported As: 1999 MLD 1204 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' This has become redundant. 2. The petitioner challenges the acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent No,4 for the election to one of the seats of Cantonment Board, Faisal to be held on 30--5-1998, on the ground that the said respondent is not a voter in the constituency concerned i.e, Ward No,5 and, therefore, not eligible to contest in the elections. In support of the contention reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the voters list filed alongwith the petitioner. It was submitted that on this ground fourth respondent's nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer but on appeal the President, Cantonment Board, Faisal allowed him to contest in the elections. ' The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No,4 as also that for the official respondents denied the allegation that the private respondent is not a voter in the constituency. In this regard they relied on the voters list which according to them pertained to the same constituency and in which the name of the said respondent appeared. Apart from the name of the respondent No,4 appearing in the voter list, the official respondent No,3 in this parawise comments has unequivocally stated that the respondent No,4 is a registered voter of the concerned Wards of Faisal Cantonment. There is no reason to disbelieve the voters list produced by the fourth respondent and the statement of the official I respondent on the factual aspect of the controversy. We accordingly find no merit in this petition, which we dismiss in limine. ' On 29-5-1998, after hearing the learned counsel, we had dismissed this petition by a short order. Above are the reasons for such dismissal. 3. This has become infructuous and is dismissed.