PESHAWAR, Aug 1: A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court on Monday granted interim relief to various petitioners and allowed them to contest the forthcoming local government elections against different posts, including nazims, naib nazims and councillors.

The bench comprising Justice Dost Muhammad Khan and Justice Jehanzeb Raheem took up for preliminary hearing about 35 election-related writ petitions filed by aggrieved candidates challenging their disqualification on different grounds.

In most cases, the court granted interim relief to the petitioners and issued notices to the respondents, including the Election Commissioner of Pakistan and others. The court directed the returning officers concerned in different cases to allot election symbols to these petitioners.

The court allowed a former nazim of union council Speenkhak, Nowshera, Nadir Shah, to contest elections. His nomination papers were rejected by the returning officer on the ground that his ‘proposer’ had not put his signature on the nomination papers.

Advocate Malik Haroon appeared for the petitioner and contended that both the ‘proposer’ and ‘seconder’ remained present throughout the scrutiny of nomination papers and they had also given affidavit that they had proposed and seconded the petitioner.

He contended that the ‘proposer’ had erroneously not signed the nomination papers, which was a minor mistake and could be rectified at the time of scrutiny. The bench issued notice to the respondents and directed that in the meantime he is allowed to contest elections.

The same bench allowed a female-petitioner to contest polls in the category of seats reserved for minorities. The petitioner, Ms Farzana, stated that she had filed nomination papers for the seat in a union council in the Swabi district, but her papers were rejected on the ground that at the time of scrutiny she did not turn up before the returning officer.

Her counsel Muzamil Khan contended that she was present on the premises of the courts throughout the day on the day of scrutiny, but due to huge rush she could not hear the returning officer calling her name.

The court observed that it was the duty of returning officer to scrutinize papers till midnight and if she was not present at that time the officer should have waited for her. The court directed the returning officer to allot her election symbol.

Meanwhile, the bench granted interim relief to a petitioner whose papers were rejected as he was convicted seven years ago. The petitioner, Jehanzeb Ali Shah, had filed papers for the seat of general councillor in a union council in Bannu district.

His counsel Khursheed Khattak stated that he was only fined Rs1000 in a case under the Arms Ordinance in 1998. He added that under the Local Government Ordinance he was entitled to contest polls as a candidate was qualified to contest polls if he had not been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months and a period of not less than five years had elapsed since his release.

The court also permitted a candidate for the post of naib nazim whose papers were rejected by the district returning officer as his name was not present in the voters list of 2001.

The petitioner, Zafar Khan, hailing from Swabi, stated that his name was present in the 2002 voters list which was an upgraded version of the 2001 list.

His counsel Muzamil Khan argued that the high court had already decided in an earlier petition that the voters mentioned in 2002 lists were entitled to contest polls and to appear as ‘proposers’ and ‘seconders’.

Similarly, the court allowed a candidate from Usterzai union council of Kohat, whose papers were rejected for the post of nazim by the district returning officer, on the ground that he is an employee of Wapda in Balochistan.

Barrister Masood Kausar, appearing for the petitioner, contended that Nijat Ali’s papers were accepted by the returning officer but later on the DRO disqualified him.

He argued that the date fixed for filing of objections was July 22, but the rival candidate filed a simple objection on July 23. He added that the DRO did not verify the fact whether the petitioner was an employee of Wapda or not and simply on the basis of a fax, which was not even addressed to the DRO, the petitioner was disqualified.