Court asks if it can still hear plea challenging re-polling at PS-128

Lawyer asks for time to argue the maintainability of the case.


Our Correspondent June 06, 2013
PHOTO: FILE

KARACHI: In a petition challenging the re-polling on six stations on Karachi’s PS-128 seat, the Sindh High Court asked the lawyer if the case is even relevant now.

A candidate of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Waqar Hussain, Shah had gone to court against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for allowing a rival candidate, Maulana Aurangzeb Farooqui’s, plea for re-election on six polling stations of the constituency.



He claimed that he had secured the highest number of votes, 23,496, but the ECP, without giving him an opportunity to explain his position, allowed Farooqui’s request for re-polling on the pretext of a bomb blast on the day of the elections.

Taking up the matter on Wednesday, the judges questioned, however, how the high court could even hear the election matter. Shah’s lawyer, Shahab Sarki, filed a power of attorney on behalf of Shah and requested the judges allow him time to prepare and argue on the plea’s maintainability in the high court.

Delimitation

The same bench directed the ECP to file comments on the delimitation of two National Assembly and five Sindh Assembly constituencies in Naushero Feroze district by July 10.

Following the court’s earlier directions, the ECP had constituted a committee to review the proposals and submit its final report to redraw constituencies in Karachi and Naushero Feroze, Murad Ali Shah, a former legislator, told the judges. Although the body submitted its report in respect of Karachi constituencies, but that of Naushero Feroze constituencies is still withheld.



He pleaded the court initiate contempt proceedings against the chief and members of the election commission for not complying with court orders.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2013.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ