Draft Of Appeal In District Judge Or Election Tribunal Against Rejection Of Nomination Papers

Legal Discussions Legal Drafting and Templates
1

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS JUDGE/ ELECTION TRIBUNAL UNION COUNCIL NO. -4, GANGAL, RAWALPINDI.

Sajid Chaudhary son of Taj Muhammad R/O Nai Abadi, Lalyal, P.O Chaklala, Dhoke Gangal, Rawalpindi
…Appellant
Versus

Returning Officer UC-4, Gangal, Rawalpindi.
Respondent

APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-12-2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT WHEREBY THE APPELLANT’S NOMINATION PAPERS FOR UC-4 GANGAL, RAWALPINDI HAVE BEEN REJECTED DUE TO PROPOSAL OF THE CANDIDATE IS NOT REGISTEDA S A VOTER WHERE THE CANDIDATE IS CONTESTING ELECTION

Respectfully Sheweth:-

  1. That the appellant wanted to contest election General Counselor from the Union Council No. 4, Gangal, Rawalpindi. Election to be held in 2014 for which purpose he submitted nomination papers duly proposed and seconded by the proposer and seconder before the respondent.

  2. The said nomination papers submitted by the appellant have been rejected with order that proposer the of appellant is not a registered voter from where the appellant is contesting election.

  3. That at the time of submitting of nomination papers by appellant, there was no restriction by the Government that the candidate, proposer and seconder should be registered voter in same ward of Union council from where the candidate is going to contest election. Hence the said order is liable to be set-aside.

  4. That law favors decision on merits and not on technicalities. Even there was no objection on the nomination papers of the appellant.

  5. That the impugned order dated; 31-12-2013 is against law, election rules, null, void, without lawful authority and is liable to be set-aside.

  6. That the impugned order is not speaking order and based upon reasoning.

  7. That the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

  8. That the learned Returning Officer failed to appraise the actual controversy.

  9. That the impugned order is result of illegalities and irregularities, jurisdiction has not been exercised by the respondent No.1 in a lawful manner.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore respectfully prayed that this appeal may be accepted, the impugned order dated: 31-12-2013 passed by respondent may be set-aside and the appellant’s nomination papers may be accepted.

Any other relief which this Honorable court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the appellant

				Appellant

		Through

Muhammad Mateen
Advocate High Court
CERTIFICATE:

Certified as per instructions that this is the first appeal against the impugned order before this Honorable court.

Advocate.