The Supreme Court dismissed the plea to annul the recount order in National Assembly Constituency NA-97 Faisalabad.
The Supreme Court declared the application inadmissible on behalf of the candidate of Pakistan Muslim League (N) Ali Gohar Baloch
ISLAMABAD ( Web News)
The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected the appeal of Pakistan Muslim League (N) candidate Ali Gohar Baloch against the decision of the Lahore High Court to nullify the recount order by the Election Commission of Pakistan in NA-97 Faisalabad. The hearing was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner could not produce any record during the hearing regarding the filing of the recount petition on 9 February 2024 before the results of the constituency were produced. The court held that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitions for recount by the returning officers were rejected, but no petition was on record in this case. While Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan has remarked that why the date was not written on the recount application, what was wrong in writing the date on the two-page application. If the application comes before the results are ready and the margin of loss is 5%, the training officer is bound to conduct a recount. A 2-member bench comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, headed by senior judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the petition filed by Ali Gohar Khan against the decision of the Lahore High Court regarding recounting in the constituency. Hasan Raza Pasha appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Senior Advocate and Member of the National Assembly, appeared as counsel on behalf of the respondent Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf candidate Saadullah Baloch. On behalf of the Election Commission, DG Law Election Commission Muhammad Arshad appeared and gave arguments. When the hearing of the case started on Wednesday, the case was adjourned due to the late arrival of Sardar Latif Khosa. Later, after reaching the court, Sardar Latif Khosa came to the rostrum during the hearing of other cases and pleaded that I am sick and the hospital I am getting up from the intensive care unit, so the hearing of the case should be adjourned till next week. On this, Justice Aminuddin Khan rejected the request of Latif Khosa and said that we had postponed your request in the previous hearing as well, you should give your arguments, otherwise call the advocate on record and then see what to do. After the hearing of other cases was completed, the case was scheduled for hearing again and the petitioner’s lawyer Hasan Raza Pasha started the arguments. Justice Aminuddin Khan while talking to Hasan Raza Pasha said that what is the reference which is our first decision. Hasan Raza Pasha said that my client got 70532 votes in the elections to be held on February 8, 2024, while the defendant got 72846 votes, the difference between the two votes is 2314 votes. Hasan Raza Pasha said that the facts of the first case are the same in this case. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan said that the returning officer issued any order on the recount request or not? On this Hassan Raza Pasha said that Arawan said that I did not receive any request regarding the recount, then we went to the Election Commission of Pakistan and they issued an order for a recount. Hasan Raza Pasha said that the High Court wrote in the judgment that we applied for a recount which was dismissed. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan while talking to the lawyer said that how will you prove that your request for recount was made on February 9, 2024 before the results were set. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan said that the answer of the returning officer should be shown before the High Court or the Election Commission. Hasan Raza Pasha said that Rone said that I did not receive the application. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that in the cases he was referring to, the requests for recount by Arauz were rejected. Hasan Raza Pasha said that I had filed a re-counting application before the results were published. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan said that this is a factual dispute which we can resolve only through records. Justice Aminuddin Khan said that there should be a date of receipt of any application. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan said that why the date was not written on the recount request, what was wrong in writing the date on the two-page request. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan said that if the application comes before the results are ready and the margin of loss is 5%, then it is bound to conduct a recount. Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan said that the application should have come before the results were compiled, show us that Rone said that the application had not come, from where the High Court wrote that the application had come. Justice Aminuddin Khan said that in the first writ petition, show that it was written that the petition was filed on February 9 before the results were declared. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that we only want to see the date on which date the application was made, the counting started on February 9 and it may continue for several days, show from the record that the application was made before February 9, not writing the date will give a negative impression. . Meanwhile, when Sardar Latif Khosa came to the rostrum to give his arguments, Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan was talking to him and said that you are looking very fresh, you were saying that you have just woken up from the ICU. Hasan Raza Pasha said that the Election Commission Karikadmangwalen may contain the application made on February 9. On this, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan while talking to Hasan Raza Pasha said that we want to see your karikard. Sardar Latif Khosa said that the returning officer and the presiding officer were made a party and I was not made a party. Latif Khosa said that Aaravan wrote that the request regarding recount was an afterthought. Latif Khosa said that no request for recount was made, Aaravan maintains that no request was made. Meanwhile, Justice Aminuddin Khan asked who is appearing on behalf of the Election Commission. On this, DG Law Muhammad Arshad came to the rostrum. Justice Aminuddin Khan while talking to DG Law said that what does your record say. On this, DG Law said that according to our record no recount application was filed on February 9, an application was filed which But neither dated nor signed by the Returning Officer. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court dismissed the application as inadmissible. ZS