2010 PLP 346 (YLR)
ALLAHDINO and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 346 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim and Maqbool Ahmed Awan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAHDINO and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 346 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 346 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim and Maqbool Ahmed Awan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 346 (YLR) (ALLAHDINO and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Qaseem Ahmed for Petitioners.
- Salahuddin Panhwar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.39(6) & 52
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Recounting of votes
Petitioner had impugned the order passed by the Election Tribunal by which application of the respondent for recounting of the votes was allowed
Respondent challenged election of the petitioner on the ground of concept podia by way of election petition
During pendency of election petition, the respondent made application for recounting of the votes
Election Tribunal ordered recounting of the votes, which had been challenged
Election Tribunal had not passed final order
Election Tribunal could order recounting of votes without recording evidence
Order passed by the Tribunal was interlocutory in nature which could not be impugned in constitutional petition
Petition being misconceived, was dismissed. Liaquat Ali v. Election Tribunal, Sialkot 2003 SCMR 1313; Moula Bux v. Muhammad Rahim 2003 CLC 310 and Muhammad Naeem Kasi v. Abdul Latif 2005 SCMR 1699 ref. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl. A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned order passed by the Tribunal by which the application of the respondent for recounting of the votes was allowed. The respondent has challenged the elections of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of concept podia by way of election petition. During the pendency of election petition the respondent has made an application that he would give up the reliefs prayed in the election petition and would be satisfied if recount is ordered. The Tribunal after hearing the parties had ordered recounting of the votes, which order has been challenged in the proceedings. We have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy us that a writ lies against the interlocutory order. He could not cite a single judgment on the proposition. However, he has relied upon the case of Liaquat Ali v. Election Tribunal, Sialkot reported in 2003 SCMR 1313. We have gone through the said case, which is distinguishable from the facts as in the said case the Election Tribunal had finally dismissed the election petition against which, writ was filed which too, was dismissed and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said proceedings while examining the impugned order had laid down the principles for recounting. In the case in hand, the Election Tribunal has not passed final order and the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are fully answered by the judgment of this court in the case of Moula Bux v. Muhammad Rahim reported in 2003 CLC 310, where this court had held that the Election Tribunal can order recounting of votes without recording evidence. Additionally, we are clear in our mind that no writ lies against interlocutory order. The order is interlocutory in nature and cannot be impugned in the constitutional petition. We are further fortified by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Naeem Kasi v. Abdul Latif reported in 2005 SCMR 1699. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The recounting shall take place within two weeks from the date of communication of the order and such report be placed before the Tribunal who shall pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt. H.B.T. /A-146/K Petition dismissed.