Sh. RASHID AHMAD vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the word "decision" as used in Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, specifically whether it encompasses interim orders alongside final decisions and permits an appeal to the Supreme Court. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the operation of the impugned order should be suspended for the time being, thereby allowing a full review of whether interim orders fall within the scope of the statutory provision governing appeals.
- Does the word 'decision' in section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 include an interim order?
- Can an aggrieved party file an appeal before the Supreme Court against an interim order passed under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1976
ORDER
1. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave is granted to consider whether the learned High Court was correct to hold that the word "decision" used in section 67 of the People Representation Act, 1976 does not always refer to a final decision and it shall also include an interim order and in that case the petitioner, if aggrieved, could have filed an appeal before the Supreme Court in view of Mian Zahid Sarfraz v. Raja Nadir Pervaiz Khan (1987 SCM R 1107).
2. ' The operation of the impugned order for the time being is suspended.