close
Advertisement
Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!
A
Agencies
February 24, 2021

Vawda remains in the Senate race, Pervaiz Rasheed is out

Top Story

A
Agencies
February 24, 2021

By News Desk

KARACHI/LAHORE: An appellate election tribunal in Sindh rejected on Tuesday a challenge to Water Resources Minister Faisal Vawda’s eligibility to participate in the Senate elections, while a separate tribunal in Punjab dismissed PML-N leader Pervaiz Rasheed’s appeal against the rejection of his nomination papers.

The Sindh High Court’s election tribunal heard Qadir Mandokhel’s appeal against a returning officer’s decision to approve Vawda’s nomination papers. During the hearing, the tribunal rejected Mandokhel’s appeal against Vawda and upheld the PTI leader’s nomination. The tribunal said the appellant could file a constitutional petition if he wishes to.

Meanwhile, an appellate election tribunal of the Lahore High Court (LHC) dismissed an appeal filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Pervaiz Rasheed against the rejection of his nomination papers for the Senate elections.

Pervaiz Rasheed’s nomination papers were rejected last week by a returning officer for defaulting on millions in payments that had to be made to Punjab House. A PTI lawmaker had challenged Rasheed’s eligibility.

The tribunal, comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, heard the appeal wherein the PML-N leader appeared along with his counsel. At the start of the proceedings, a law officer apprised the tribunal of the records of Punjab House, Islamabad, in response to a query.

At this stage, Punjab House’s controller submitted records about Rasheed’s stay in Punjab House and an audited report. He further said a notice had been sent to Rasheed for payment of Rs9.5 million in dues at his residence in Defence Housing Authority. However, Rasheed’s counsel denied that a notice was served for the payment of dues. He argued that a notice had been given to his client during the scrutiny of his nomination papers and he attempted to deposit the amount, but it was not received.

He said even now his client was ready to pay the dues, adding that he applied to the returning officer twice for payment of dues, but to no avail. The counsel said the record of Punjab House had come and the tribunal could confirm that Rasheed did not stay at Punjab House.

At this, Justice Waheed observed that Rasheed had not claimed in his appeal that he did not stay at Punjab House. To this, the counsel submitted that Rasheed had contested the Senate elections earlier, but the objection of non-payment of dues was not raised at that time. He pleaded with the court to allow his client to contest the elections while concluding his arguments.

A counsel, on behalf of the respondent objector, claimed that Rasheed was aware of the dues but he did nothing for the purpose. “If Pervaiz Rasheed never stayed at Punjab House, why is he ready to pay the dues?” he asked.

He said the returning officer gave Rasheed 48 hours for the payment of the dues, but the amount was not deposited. At this stage, Justice Waheed asked the counsel where Rasheed was supposed to deposit the dues. The counsel said Rasheed should have deposited the dues to the controller of Punjab House.

The Punjab House controller clarified that Pervaiz Rasheed did not approach him or any other staff member for the purpose.Subsequently, the tribunal, after hearing arguments of parties, dismissed the appeal filed by Pervaiz Rasheed and upheld the decision of the returning officer