AGL40.21▲ 0.18 (0.00%)AIRLINK127.64▼ -0.06 (0.00%)BOP6.67▲ 0.06 (0.01%)CNERGY4.45▼ -0.15 (-0.03%)DCL8.73▼ -0.06 (-0.01%)DFML41.16▼ -0.42 (-0.01%)DGKC86.11▲ 0.32 (0.00%)FCCL32.56▲ 0.07 (0.00%)FFBL64.38▲ 0.35 (0.01%)FFL11.61▲ 1.06 (0.10%)HUBC112.46▲ 1.69 (0.02%)HUMNL14.81▼ -0.26 (-0.02%)KEL5.04▲ 0.16 (0.03%)KOSM7.36▼ -0.09 (-0.01%)MLCF40.33▼ -0.19 (0.00%)NBP61.08▲ 0.03 (0.00%)OGDC194.18▼ -0.69 (0.00%)PAEL26.91▼ -0.6 (-0.02%)PIBTL7.28▼ -0.53 (-0.07%)PPL152.68▲ 0.15 (0.00%)PRL26.22▼ -0.36 (-0.01%)PTC16.14▼ -0.12 (-0.01%)SEARL85.7▲ 1.56 (0.02%)TELE7.67▼ -0.29 (-0.04%)TOMCL36.47▼ -0.13 (0.00%)TPLP8.79▲ 0.13 (0.02%)TREET16.84▼ -0.82 (-0.05%)TRG62.74▲ 4.12 (0.07%)UNITY28.2▲ 1.34 (0.05%)WTL1.34▼ -0.04 (-0.03%)

Pervaiz Elahi, wife’s appeal against rejection of nomination papers dismissed

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

An election tribunal in Rawalpindi has dismissed the appeals of former Punjab chief minister and PTI President Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi and his wife Qaisera Elahi against the decision of the returning officers to reject their nomination papers from NA 59 and PP 23.

The Lahore High Court’s election tribunal Judge Chaudhry Abdul Aziz announced the reserved decision on Monday. Upholding the decision of the returning officer, the tribunal dismissed the appeals of Pervaiz Elahi and his wife. Earlier, during the hearing of the appeal, law officer Falak Sher and assistant director law Zulqarnain Haider appeared on behalf of the Election Commission while Sardar Abdul Razzaq advocate appeared on behalf of Ch Pervaiz Elahi. The ECP presented the record pertaining to the rejection of nomination papers of the Elahis in the court while advocate Abdul Razzaq completed his arguments.

Both husband and wife were found guilty of concealing assets. Pervaiz Elahi did not disclose foreign visits of his wife. The objection of not disclosing the shares in different companies by the couple was also found to be valid.

According to the election tribunal, the objection of not opening bank accounts for separate expenses for both the constituencies, technical errors in the documents, and the objection of not getting proper confirmation from the Oath Commissioner were also found to be valid.

 

Related Posts