Pakistan Case Law
1970 SCMR 489

KAMAL AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1970 SCMR 489
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-92 of 1969 Petition No. 106 of
Date1970-01-13
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Wahiduddin Ahmad
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns an election dispute regarding the rejection of a nomination paper for the Karachi Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether the Returning Officer acted lawfully in rejecting the respondent's nomination paper on the ground that the certificate of membership for a social organization, required for special interest representation, was not properly authenticated. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the rejection of the nomination paper was without lawful authority. The Court held that neither the Municipal Administration Ordinance nor the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Election of Members to represent Special Interests) Rules, 1966, contained any provision requiring the authentication of the certificate of membership for a social organization. Consequently, the rejection of the nomination paper was legally invalid, and the High Court correctly set aside the Returning Officer's order. The key principle laid down is that election authorities cannot impose requirements for nomination papers, such as the authentication of documents, that are not explicitly prescribed by the governing statute or rules, as doing so constitutes an act without lawful authority.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a Returning Officer reject a nomination paper based on a requirement not prescribed by the governing election rules?
  • Does the Municipal Administration Ordinance or the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Election of Members to represent Special Interests) Rules, 1966 require the authentication of a membership certificate for a social organization?
  • Is the rejection of a nomination paper without a statutory basis considered an act without lawful authority?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 9, Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960
  • Rule 7(3), West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Election of Members to represent Special Interests) Rules 1966
  • Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance 1961
election disputenomination paperReturning Officerspecial interest representationmunicipal electionlawful authoritywrit jurisdiction

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The nomination paper filed by the respondent No. 1 for election to the Karachi Municipal Corporation as a representative of the Special Interests was in accordance with Form I, Appendix 1, prescribed under rule 7 (3) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Election of Members to represent Special Interests) Rules, 1966. The Returning Officer, however, rejected the nomination paper on the ground that the certificate filed along with the nomination paper showing that the respondent was a member of "Anjuman Islah-e-Ghariban" a duly registered Society under the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance XLVI of 1961 was not properly authenticated. Thereafter election for two seats reserved for special interests under section 9 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance was held on the 26th February 1966, in which the petitioner and another were declared elected.

2. An appeal preferred by the respondent to the Collector against the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomina--tion paper was dismissed on 1.6-2-1966. He thereupon moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction contending that there was no provision for authentication of the certificate of his membership of a social organization within the Municipal Administration Ordinance and the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Election of Members to represent Special Interests) Rules, 1966. The plea was accepted and the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent was set aside as without lawful authority.

3. The rejection of the nomination paper of the respondent was thus clearly without lawful authority and the High Court has properly set it aside.

4. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.