SHELLA B. CHARLES vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Another
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions in limine against an interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of constitutional writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against interlocutory orders of an Election Tribunal, given the availability of an adequate statutory remedy of appeal under the relevant election laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that writ petitions against interlocutory orders of the Election Tribunal are not maintainable because such orders can be challenged in an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 after the final determination of the election petition. The key principle laid down is that High Courts ought not to interfere through constitutional jurisdiction with interlocutory orders passed by Election Tribunals during ongoing election proceedings, as the statutory framework provides a comprehensive hierarchy and remedy for challenging election disputes upon final adjudication.
- Are constitutional writ petitions maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal?
- Can the proceedings of an election petition before an Election Tribunal be stayed at an interlocutory stage?
- What is the proper statutory remedy to challenge orders passed by an Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Section 67, Representation of the People Act, 1976
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This petitioner has filed the above to 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.
Cited by 7 cases
- Akram Khan Durrani vs Malik Adnan Khan and others 2024 PHC 312, 2025 PLD Peshawar 110
- AKRAM KHAN DURRANI Versus Malik ADNAN KHAN 2025 PLD 110
- MUHAMMAD RAZA HAYAT HIRAJ and others/Petitioners vs The ELECTION 2015 SCMR 233
- BILAL AKBAR BHATTI vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, MULTAN and 15 others 2015 PLD Lahore 272
- Sardar REHMAT ULLAH DOGAR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR 1999 MLD 2847
- Muhammad ljaz Ahmad Chaudhary vs Punjab Election Tribunal, Lahore, etc 2014 C.L.R. 775
- MUHAMMAD RAZA HAYAT HIRAJ & others vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others 2015 PLJ SC 335