Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASIF KHAN VS Respondent: RETURNING OFFICER
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Abdul Shakoor Paracha, Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani Title: ASIF KHAN vs RETURNING OFFICER Case No.: Election Appeal No,19-R of 2002 Date of Judgment:2002-09-03 Reported As: 2003 MLD 230 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' Appellant's Nomination Papers stand rejected on the ground that his proposer did not belong to the Constituency from which he sought election and filed Nomination Papers. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a sitting Nazim of the Union Council, that the Constituency No,PP-34, Sargodha-VII was the constituted in February/March, 2002 alongwith many others and the appellant had a bona fide mistake about the Constituency where the appellant's proposer had been enrolled and therefore, he should not be ousted to contest the Elections merely on a technical ground. He further added that the expression "may" in section 14(3) is directory and not mandatory. 3. Section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 mandates that:-- "Any elector of a constituency may propose or second the name of any duly qualified person to be a member for that constituency." The constituency stands defined in section 2 of the Act and admittedly the proposer did not belong to the constituency from which the appellant wanted to contest section 14(3)(c) of the afore- referred Act mandates that the Returning Officer may of his own motion or upon the objection raised by any person, reject the Nomination Papers inter alia on the ground: "Any provision of section 12 or section 13 has not been complied with (or submits any false or incorrect declaration or statement in any material particular);" 4. Admittedly, the proposer is not enrolled in PP-34 in which the appellant had filed his Nomination Papers. The expression "may" appearing in section 14(3)(c) of the Act is mandatory otherwise it would frustrate the very purpose of section 12 and other related sections. In the afore-referred
---
## Page 2
circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order to warrant interference. This appeal having no merits is dismissed in limine.