LAHORE: The Lahore High Court Tuesday again issued notices to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chairman Imran Khan on a writ petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) order allowing him to move an application with Returning Officer NA-122 to inspect election record.
The LHC chief justice issued notice on a petition filed by National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq who was declared returned candidate from the constituency in the May 11 general elections on the PML-N ticket.
As proceedings started today, the ECP's counsel appeared before the court and submitted a reply.
However, after reviewing the reply, the chief justice directed the counsel to seek further explanation and apprise it on the next date of hearing.
The chief justice was informed that no body appeared on behalf of Imran Khan. The chief justice directed to re-issue notice and adjourned the matter till September 18.
The petitioner through his petition submitted that Imran Khan had filed an application before the ECP for public inspection of election record of NA-122 and the commission had on June 18, 2013, allowed the application and also directed the applicant (Khan) to make another application for examination of documents before the returning officer concerned.
He submitted that the petitioner had no objection to the inspection of election record, except ballot papers, in terms of Section 45 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
The petitioner said that he had objection only to the extent that ECP expected the returning officer of NA- 122, Lahore to allow and supervise public inspection of permissible election record.
He said the impugned order granted relief to the respondent on the basis that the RO had the custody of the election record whereas presently RO did not have any election record because the record had already been forwarded to the ECP as required by the law.
`Presently, the proceedings before the RO were at the stage of filing of reply by the petitioner in answer to the application for public inspection filed by the respondent (Khan), he said and added that the RO had completed his job and did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings assigned to him by the impugned order of the ECP.
He pleaded the court to set aside the impugned order by declaring it void ab initio, illegal and unlawful.
Comments
Comments are closed.