1997SCMR941 (PLP)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1995. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This petitioner has filed the above two petitions for leave to appeal against the order dated 7‑11‑1994 dismissing the petitioner's Writ Petitions Nos. 12770 and 12771 of 1994 in limine, which were directed against the interlocutory order dated 9‑8‑1994 of the Election Tribunal in which the following direction was given:‑‑ "

16. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Lahore has been appointed as Additional Judge of the Lahore High Court and his successor has not so far been appointed. The office has reported that on account of summer vacation the Additional District and Sessions Judges at Lahore are sitting in rotation and Mr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi, Additional District and Sessions Judge would be working w.e.f. 21‑8‑1994, therefore, parties are directed to appear before him on 23‑8‑1994 at 11‑00 a.m. The respondent No. 1 is directed to ensure that the ballots pertaining to constituencies mentioned in para. 14 are produced before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, who is directed to complete recounting by 31‑8‑1994 and submit the report to this Tribunal on 1‑9‑1994. The respondent No. 1 is further directed to seal the ballot papers immediately after their recount and keep them in his custody till further orders by this Tribunal."

2. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by the above impugned order has declined the aforesaid writ petitions for the following reasons:‑‑ "12.As observed above, the order dated 9‑8‑1994 is interlocutory one and with jurisdiction and the learned Election Tribunal has yet to pass final orders in the election petitions. The final order, which includes any interlocutory order like the impugned order dated 9‑8‑1994, is subject to incidence of appeal under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, on this ground alone, we think that the writ petitions are not maintainable against the impugned order dated 9‑8‑1994. Ins such, both the writ petitions are dismissed in limine. Since the main petition has been dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications also stand dismissed." The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above applications for the stay of the proceedings, the thrust of the arguments of Dr. A. Basit, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the learned Election Tribunal not entitled to order the recounting of the votes in the manner in which it had directed. His further submission was that the petitioner was riot even allowed to file a written statement in which she wanted to raise certain legal objections as to the maintainability of the election petition.

4. We would not like to comment upon the merits of the above contentions as it may prejudice the petitioner. However, it will suffice to observe, for the purpose of disposal of the above stay applications, that the Election Laws provide hierarchy for impugning the election and the orders passed by the Election Tribunals. If the above orders of the Election Tribunal are illegal, the same can be challenged by the petitioner if eventually the election petition is decided against her but the proceedings of an election petition cannot be stayed at this stage. We are not inclined to grant any interlocutory stay order. The above application for leave to appeal may be fixed at an early date. A.A/S‑968/S Order accordingly.