BR100 Decreased By (-0%)
BR30 Decreased By (-0.12%)
KSE100 No Change (0%)
KSE30 No Change (0%)
BECO 6.03 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (4.51%)
BML 52.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-0.47%)
BOP 34.25 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (0.76%)
CNERGY 8.16 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.62%)
DCL 12.34 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.15%)
FCCL 53.89 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (2.01%)
FCSC 5.22 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (2.96%)
FFL 18.03 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.45%)
FNEL 1.30 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.78%)
HUMNL 11.00 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.1%)
KEL 8.11 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.12%)
KOSM 5.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-2.54%)
MLCF 88.05 Increased By ▲ 1.54 (1.78%)
NBP 186.48 Increased By ▲ 1.32 (0.71%)
PACE 10.72 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.32%)
PAEL 39.94 Increased By ▲ 0.52 (1.32%)
PIAHCLA 26.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.19%)
PIBTL 17.32 Increased By ▲ 0.65 (3.9%)
PPL 232.78 Increased By ▲ 4.60 (2.02%)
PRL 34.95 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (0.78%)
PTC 67.56 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (3.41%)
SEARL 90.93 Increased By ▲ 0.80 (0.89%)
SSGC 27.17 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (2.14%)
TELE 8.57 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (3.5%)
THCCL 60.13 Increased By ▲ 1.63 (2.79%)
TPLP 8.76 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (6.57%)
TREET 24.54 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.04%)
TRG 71.75 Increased By ▲ 2.04 (2.93%)
WAVES 9.98 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.4%)
WTL 1.26 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.56%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has set aside the notifications issued for delimitations made by the delimitation committees/officers for local bodies elections in different constituencies of Punjab and referred a number of petitions to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for their disposal within one month in accordance with the law.

The petitioner Tariq Iqbal and others approached the court against the decision of the delimitation committees/authorities regarding delimitation of different constituencies in Punjab.

The court said one of the fundamental steps to hold fair elections is that the process of delimitation of constituencies should be carried out by a neutral and credible body, the court added.

The court observed that the delimitation authority while conducting the impugned delimitation have failed to act reasonably, fairly and justly as required under section 24-A of General Clauses Act.

It was incumbent upon the authority to decide the objections of each objector separately on its own merit, but to its dismay it decided multifarious objections raised by petitioners evasively in a single order. Such an order is not sustainable under the law, the court held.

The court said although the authority decided the objections but they are not in accordance with the Rule. No justification or reasoning has been mentioned in the impugned order of delimitation authority. It is not a speaking order rather based on evasive grounds, the court added.

The court said the impugned order as well as the proceedings are also a gross violation of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which manifestly impresses upon the authorities to decide the cases after application of mind on the touchstone of reasonableness, which otherwise is lacking in the instant case.

The court allowing the petitions observed that the ECP under provisions of the Act, rules and the constitution has the mandate to make amendments, alteration or modification in the final list of constituencies, so the remedy against the decision of the authority provided under Section 22 of the Act can be deemed to be the ECP and referred all the petitions to ECP for their disposal in accordance with the law.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.