| Case ID |
39a70beb-613a-4ccf-96b6-0ce174461675 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 8320 of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 12, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 12, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court allowed the petition filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, setting aside the impugned orders of the Returning Officer and others. The court directed the Returning Officer to accept the petitioner's nomination papers and proceed further in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that if the petitioner is declared a returned candidate and the respondents wish to challenge the genuineness of the signatures or thumb impressions, they may do so before the Election Tribunal, where they will have the opportunity to present evidence. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case W.P. No. 8320 of 2015 adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on November 12, 2015, petitioner Mukhtar Ahmad challenged the rejection of his nomination papers for the Seat of General Member of Union Council No. 130 Rindan, Tehsil Liaqat Pur, Rahim Yar Khan. The core issue revolved around the validity of the signatures and thumb impressions of his proposer and seconder, Muhammad Maqbool and Irfan Ali, respectively. Ahmad contended that both had been coerced by rival candidates to retract their support, leading to the dismissal of his nomination by the Returning Officer based on the absence of genuine proposer and seconder endorsements.
The court meticulously examined the application of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, specifically Rule 14(3)(d), and the Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 84, which empowers courts to compare disputed signatures and thumb impressions with authenticated samples. Referencing precedents such as Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 899 and Messrs Waqas Enterprises and others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and 2 others 1999 SCMR 85, the bench underscored the necessity of conducting a summary inquiry to ascertain the authenticity of the signatures before outright dismissal of a candidate's nomination.
During the proceedings, both Muhammad Maqbool and Irfan Ali were present and provided fresh thumb impressions and signatures for comparison. The court found a 95% similarity between these and the disputed entries in the nomination papers, leading to the realization that the signatures were likely coerced by opposing political entities. Consequently, the Lahore High Court set aside the earlier decision, urging the Returning Officer to accept Ahmad's nomination and continue the electoral process.
This judgment emphasizes the judiciary's role in safeguarding electoral integrity, ensuring that candidates are not unjustly disqualified due to fraudulent manipulations undermining the democratic process. By enforcing strict adherence to legal frameworks governing elections and signature verification, the court reinforced the principles of fair play and transparency essential for credible local governance. The decision also provides a clear pathway for further legal remedies through the Election Tribunal, should any party seek to contest the authenticity of electoral endorsements, thereby fortifying the electoral system against malpractice and ensuring the true voice of the electorate is heard. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Union Council No. 130 Rindan,
Tehsil Liaqat Pur,
Rahim Yar Khan
|
| Judges |
Zafarullah Khan Khakwani
|
| Lawyers |
Malik Imtiaz Mahmood Awan,
Ch. Abdul Jabbar,
Abdul Shehzad Hashmi,
Syed Lutaf Jehanian
|
| Petitioners |
Mukhtar Ahmad
|
| Respondents |
Others,
Returning Officer
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 611 = 2017 MLD 282
|
| Other Citations |
Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 899,
Messrs Waqas Enterprises and others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and 2 others 1999 SCMR 85
|
| Laws Involved |
Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013,
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
|
| Sections |
R. 14(3)(d),
Art. 84
|