IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Constitutional Petition No.D-534 of 2018
Present
Mr.Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro,
Mr.Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Petitioner : Through Mr. Atta Hussain Chandio, Advocate
Date of hearing : 10.07.2018
Date of decision : 10.07.2018
O R D E R
IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Constitutional Petition are that; the petitioner filed a nomination paper to contest Election from PS-11, Larkana-II. Her nomination paper was rejected by the learned Returning Officer PS-11, Larkana-II, on 14.06.2018, mainly for the reason that it was not seconded by the voter of above said constituency. The petitioner being aggrieved of above said order of learned Returning officer for PS-11, Larkana-II preferred an Election Appeal before learned Election Appellate Tribunal, Sukkur, it was also dismissed on 22.06.2018. The petitioner being aggrieved of rejection of her nomination paper by way of above said orders of learned Returning Officer PS-11, Larkana-II and learned Election Appellate Tribunal Sukkur has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Constitutional Petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the nomination paper of the petitioner was seconded by the voter of constituency other than the one from where the petitioner was intending to contest the election due to bonafide mistake on account of change of Wards. By contending so, he sought for acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner from the above said constituency, as according to him right to contest the election being fundamental right could not be denied to the petitioner on account of technicalities.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Section 60 of the Election Act 2017 reads as under;-
“60. Nomination for election.---(1) Any voter of a constituency, may propose or second the name of any qualified person to be a candidate for Member for that constituency”.
5. The above provision of law explicitly provides that nomination paper of any person qualified to contest election is to be proposed and seconded by the voters of that particular constituency. In the instant case, admittedly the nomination paper of the petitioner was seconded by a person who was not the voter of that particular constituency as such it was violative of the mandate contained by Section 60 of the Election Act, 2017. If it is believed for the sake of arguments that the nomination paper of the petitioner was seconded by the person being voter of the constituency other than the one from where the petitioner was intending to contest the election under bonafide mistake, even then such mistake could not be permitted to be cured under the pretext of being bonafide simply for the reason that there is nothing in election law, which may authorize substitution of seconder to nomination paper at subsequent stage. In these circumstances, the learned Returning officer PS-11, Larkana-II was right to reject the nomination paper of the petitioner and such rejection of her nomination paper was rightly maintained by learned Election Appellate Tribunal Sukkur, those orders are not calling for any interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
6. Above are reasons of our short order dated 10.07.2018, whereby the instant constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
J U D G E
J U D G E
- -