February 28, 2008	Thursday	Safar 20 ,1429

PESHAWAR, Feb 27: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday ordered recounting of the rejected votes in provincial assembly constituency, PF-4, Peshawar-IV during the Feb 18 general elections.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Hamid Farooq Durrani and Justice Shahjee Rehman Khan partially allowed a writ petition filed by the losing candidate, Muhammad Ibrahim Qasmi, seeking recounting of the votes.

The bench directed that the returning officer of PF-4 should conduct the recounting of the rejected votes within two days in the presence of all candidates.

Counsel of the petitioner told the bench that according to unofficial results his client received 6,103 votes against 6,320 votes of the rival candidate, Syed Aqil Shah of ANP.

He added that the petitioner lost with a thin margin of 217 votes while 553 votes were declared rejected.

He contended that the petitioner filed application before the returning officer but he turned it down.

He argued that under section 39(6) of the Representation of Peoples Act the returning officer should have recounted the votes.

PETITION DISMISSED: A two-member bench of the high court dismissed a writ petition filed by a female member of People’s Party Parliamentarian requesting to set aside orders of her disqualification by the returning officer and the election appellate tribunal.

The petitioner, Ms Ayesha Gulalai, was mentioned in serial No. 4 of the party list of candidates for the seats reserved for women in the provincial assembly.

The petitioner appeared in person and stated that her date of birth was erroneously mentioned as Oct 5, 1986, in her academic credentials whereas her real date of birth was July 5, 1982. She contended that she belonged to South Waziristan tribal region where female literacy rate was very low. She added that she was admitted to a school along with her younger brother four years late and the date of birth of her brother was mentioned in his form also.

Ms Gulalai stated that her civil suit filed for correcting her age had still been pending before the civil court. She added that in January she was referred to a standing medical board which suggested that she was either 25 or more than 25.

She stated that the returning officer rejected her nomination papers on the ground that she had not attained the required age of 25 years and subsequently her petition was also dismissed by the election appellate tribunal.