close
Saturday May 11, 2024

SHC again dismisses plea for rejection of Aseefa’s papers for NA-207

By News Desk
April 28, 2024
PPP leader Aseefa Bhutto-Zardari waves at a public gathering during the partys election campaign on February 4, 2024. — APP
PPP leader Aseefa Bhutto-Zardari waves at a public gathering during the party's election campaign on February 4, 2024. — APP

The Sindh High Court has once again dismissed a petition seeking to reject the nomination papers of Aseefa Bhutto for NA-207 Shaheed Benazirabad, deeming it inadmissible. Furthermore, the court has dismissed the allegations against Aseefa Bhutto Zardari as baseless.

In its judgment, the court stated that the disqualification of the PTI candidate for NA-207 was justified on valid grounds. Additionally, the evidence presented by the PTI candidate was deemed lacking on a factual basis.

The Sindh High Court, in its decision, has stated that the nomination papers of the PTI candidate opposing Aseefa Bhutto were rejected due to the non-payment of an electricity bill.

According to the verdict, the allegations raised by the petitioner in the application were once again found to be baseless. Despite repeated instructions and warnings from the court, the petitioner failed to settle the electricity arrears.

In its judgment, the bench stated that during the court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. Despite reiterating the grounds available in the petition, no evidence was presented by the petitioner.

In its judgment, the court added that despite seeking remedy from the Election Tribunal, the petitioners failed to pay the electricity bill. Now, they only claimed that the reference number of the bill was allegedly incorrect.

According to the court, the issue, which could have been addressed during the tribunal proceedings, arose only after the announcement of the election results. There was no evidence of any additional grounds or circumstances accompanying the petition that would have warranted the dismissal of the earlier petition.

In its judgment, the court stated that the lack of concrete evidence weakened the petitioner’s case before the court.