ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Pervaiz Elahi approached the Supreme Court against the Lahore High Court (LHC)’s order to dismiss his nomination papers for the upcoming general elections.
Former chief minister Punjab Pervaiz Elahi on Wednesday filed the appeal through Barrister Haris Azmat.
The returning officer (RO) had rejected Elahi’s nomination papers on 30.12.2023, while the Election Appellate Tribunal dismissed his election appeal on 10.01.2024. The PTI then filed a writ petition before the LHC, which was dismissed on 13.01.2024.
The objections raised on the petitioner’s (Elahi) nomination papers are that the same bank account cannot be given for more than one constituency in terms of Section 60 (2) (b) of the Election Act. Weapons were not disclosed even though the amount of the same was mentioned under the category of articles of personal use in the nomination papers.
Similarly, the petitioner has certain shares in Modern Flour Mills (Pvt) Ltd Lahore, which were not disclosed. The nomination papers and affidavit of the petitioner are not attested by the jail authorities. The objections were upheld by the Election Tribunal and the LHC.
The PTI leader alleged that neither RO nor any officers of the Election Commission ever informed him about any of the alleged shortcomings.
No notices were ever served, and in fact, his representatives were not even allowed to join the proceedings at the office of the RO. The nomination papers were even snatched while they were being submitted. All the complaints have been brought to the notice of the Election Commission but to no avail.
He submitted that there is no provision in the Election Act that mandates that the same account cannot be used for each constituency;
The weapons have been disclosed under the head of articles of personal use, as there is no specific column for disclosure of the same in the nomination papers.
The shares worth less than Rs25,000 were never subscribed nor paid by the petitioner. Even otherwise, there was no dishonest intent in the non-disclosure of these assets.
The shares were never paid up by the petitioner, and in any event, are only worth a total of Rs25,000. The company itself is a defunct concern, and therefore, this was not an asset of the petitioner warranting disclosure.
He also stated that the nomination papers and affidavit submitted to the RO for scrutiny were duly attested by the relevant jail authorities.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.