Malik FAHIM ULLAH KHAN vs The DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER S — 2024 CLC 85 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Malik FAHIM ULLAH KHAN VS The DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER S.60(2)(d)---Nomination papers, rejection of---Non-submission of statement of net assets and tax return---Scope---Nomination papers of candidate were rejected by Returning Officer on the ground of non-enclosing statement of net assets and tax return---Plea of candidate was that non-annexing/enclosing tax return under the Elections Act, 2017 (Act) and Election Rules, 2017 (Rules) was not mandatory to be filed with nomination papers---Validity---Clause 2(d) of S. 60 of the Act only demonstrated about nomination papers to be filed through Form-B by mentioning statement of assets and liabilities of a candidate, his spouse and dependent children on the preceding thirtieth day of June which the appellant submitted before the Returning Officer and was not disputed by the Election Commission---However, the Returning Officer rejected appellant's nomination papers on the ground of non-filing of income tax return which was beyond the scope of said section---Words statement of assets and liabilities were mentioned in Form-B and S.60(2)(d) of the Act dealt it according to which the candidate/voter was only required to annex/enclose statement of assets and liabilities of his own or of her spouse and dependent children on the preceding day of Thirtieth June---When S.60(2)(d) of the Act and the Rules did not put any restriction of filing income tax return with the nomination papers, then the observation given by the Returning Officer in the impugned order was unwarranted and unjustified---By examining the original record of Election Commission, Form-B mentioned the list of assets wherein it was mentioned in Column No.2 that the appellant had attached with it the list of assets---List of assets filed by the appellant with Form-B mentioned the agricultural land and its value, house, his bank account, car and other items---Said fact had also been verified by the Law Officer of Election Commission that the list was properly filed by the appellant at the time of submission of his nomination papers---Thus, in view of the provisions of the Act, the income tax return did not fall within the definition of assets and liabilities as per Section 60(2)(d) of the Act and the Rules, hence, the observation given by the Returning Officer was unwarranted and uncalled for---Appeal was allowed by setting-aside the impugned order, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 85 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Malik FAHIM ULLAH KHAN VS The DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER When a law requires an act to be done in a particular manner and after fulfillment of certain requirements then it must be done in the very manner and after fulfillment of the very conditions as imposed by the law.

Malik FAHIM ULLAH KHAN vs The DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER S — 2024 CLC 85 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC