HYDERABAD, Sept 27: The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, has issued notices to the secretary of the local government department, chief election commissioner, district returning officer and returning officer of the Jamshoro district and a candidate for reserved seat, Shama Umrani.
The petitioner, Rasheeda, wife of Wali Mohammad, said that she was a candidate for the reserved seat in the Jamshoro district council while respondent Shama Umrani, who belonged to Sehwan taluka, filed her nomination papers for the women’s seat in the council.
She said the seat was allocated for Sehwan taluka whereas her proposer and seconder belonged to the Kotri taluka.
She said at the time of scrutiny, the petitioner had filed objections on the ground against nomination paper of respondent, seeking rejection of her candidature.
She said the returning officer without thoroughly examining objections and relevant provisions of law accepted the nomination paper of respondent Shama Umrani which was illegal and unlawful and unjustified.
She said being aggrieved by the order of respondent RO, the petitioner filed an appeal before the DRO, discussing section 148(2) along with its proviso and section 155(2) of the Local Government Election Ordinance 2001.
She said though the DRO had reproduced section 148(2) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 2001 and its proviso in his impugned order dated September 19 but he could not understand actual sense of such legislation.
As sub-section three pertained to all seats of the taluka council only and is not concerned with the matter and section 148(2) its proviso and section 155(2) of the SLGO are very clear in the instant matter.
She said the appeal was also dismissed by the DRO on September 19 and paragraph 21 of the manual of instructions of indirect elections of the city district, district council, town and taluka councils was very clear in respect of the proposer and the seconder of the candidate, requiring them to be voter of local area concerned where the local area was to be treated as electoral college of seats reserved for women for the district council as required by section 148(2) and its proviso as supra.
She said the ballot paper of women seats reserved for the district council allocated from any taluka would not be issued to a voter of another taluka because electoral college of women seats reserved for the district council was taluka only therefore their proposers and seconders must be from their local areas as required by law.
Under the circumstances, she said, the proposer and the seconder of the candidate were not valid for the reason that when they have to right to cast their vote for such candidate then they have or right to propose or second the same candidate.
The petitioner said the proposer and the seconder of candidate were not valid voters as per requirement of law.
She said the nomination papers might be rejected and that it was not mere question of rejection of papers but it involved question of interpretation of law.
She said in presence of divergent pleas it was incumbent upon respondent DRO and RO to analyse and interpret the same in accordance with law which they had failed to do.
She prayed the court to reject nomination paper of respondent candidate for reserved seats for women in the district council and orders of the RO and the DRO be set aside.
She called upon the court to direct respondent the RO to adopt legal procedure as required by the Local Government Elections Law for reserved seats of women in the district council.