Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Makhdoom FAZAL HUSSAIN QURESHI vs The

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

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Makhdoom FAZAL HUSSAIN QURESHI VS The RETURNING OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY - 219 (NA-219 HYDERABAD-II) Ss. 60(10), 62(9)(ii), 63 & 140---Nomination of candidate to contest General Elections, rejection of---Tax liability, defect of---Curable or substantial?---Appellant (candidate) filed election appeal against rejection of his nomination by the Returning Officer due to being defaulter of FBR tax liability---Submission of the appellant was that he was unaware of the amount due and as per S. 60(10) of the Elections Act, 2017 ('the Act 2017') if a candidate deposits any amount of loan, tax, or government dues and utility expenses payable by him of which he is unaware at the time of filing of his nomination paper, his nomination paper shall not be rejected on the ground of default in payment of such loan (his outstanding Tax liability)---Objection raised against the appellant was that defect-in-question was not a curable one within the ambit of liability the same was actually substantial---Question whether reasons assigned by the Returning Officer were substantial or curable under S. 62(9)(ii) of the Act 2017---Held, that record revealed that when the appellant filed nomination papers there was no liability on his part vide a relevant letter, however, subsequently another letter showed that there was outstanding tax liability on the part of the appellant---These two contradictory letters were confusing as the appeal against the scrutiny order passed by the Returning Officer was of a summary nature, as Election Appellate Tribunal can pass an order within the specified period, thereafter, the proceedings stand abated and the order of the Returning Officer is deemed to have become final as under S. 63 of the Elections Act, 2017 no fact-finding inquiry is to be made and/or evidence is to be recorded which is only permissible before the Election Tribunal under S. 140 of the Elections Act, 2017 after the completion of first phase of Election, however, the qualification and disqualification of the appellant on the subject issue can also be adjudicated by the Election Appellate Tribunal as the FBR had shown certain amount outstanding against the appellant though there were two contradictory letters, however, the appellant had to sort out these things with the FBR---As such on this score alone the appellant could not be non-suited to contest the election at such stage---Since the appellant was ready and willing to cure the defect within a reasonable time, let him clear his dues within a reasonable time---Appellate Tribunal set-aside the impugned order passed by the concerned Returning Officer and he (Returning Officer) was directed to include the name of the appellant in the list of contesting candidates---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Makhdoom FAZAL HUSSAIN QURESHI vs The RETURNING OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY - 219 (NA-219 HYDERABAD-II) Ss — 2025 YLR 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR