Muzaffarabad, (Parliament Times) : Judgment reserved in plea against CPC controversial Election.
An additional district and session Judge in Muzaffarabad on Thursday reserved the judgment to be announced on Saturday on a plea of three regular members against the conduction of controversial elections of Central Press Club (CPC) in violation of an order of the learned Judge maintaining status quo before the polling process.
The learned Court had issued a stay order on January 6 against the polling process scheduled on January 7 on an interim relief application along with the original petition filed by one Farooq Khan Mughal and two others versus Raja Iffitikhar and others.
The respondents despite the court order conducted the polling process and issued results of the success of their favorite candidates on Sunday while the opponent panel did not participate in the poll process in respect of the honorable court order.
The respondents also managed to organize an oath-taking ceremony for the successful candidates declared by them unilaterally on the same night by their counsel pleading their case in the court in violation of the court order.
The court on Monday had suspended the election results and summoned the respondents in person in contempt of the court in a plea filed by the petitioners through their counsel Hamad Mushtaq Janjua advocate.
The counsel of the petitioners contended during the final arguments on the plea that the respondents were served notices through a court representative and exhibited the certified copy of the report submitted by the court representative saying that 3 respondents received notices and another refused to give receiving signature despite taking the notice copy from him.
The counsel further argued that one of the respondents, the general secretary of the club, after receiving the notice, wrote a letter to respondent No. 1, the election commissioner, informing about the status quo orders issued by the court and requested him to abstain from the polling process in respect of the court order.
Moreover, the counsel informed the court that the news of the court order was widely published in all the local and national newspapers along with the social media platforms and exhibited the clippings of the published news.
He contended that all the facts and evidences prove that respondents No.2 and No.3, Election commissioner and President and candidate for the presidential slot, knowingly and willfully conducted the fake poll to achieve their vested interests which was a gross violation of the court order tantamount to contempt and usurping the political and legal rights of the petitioners as well as the opponent panel that abstained from the polling process.
He rejected the claim of the respondents’ counsel that his clients were unaware of the court order saying that the Journalists were the people who bring out the inside news how was this possible that they were unaware of the court order about their election when the news was so widely circulated?
The petitioner’s counsel also rebutted the defense side’s argument that the General Secretary was not competent to write a letter to the election commissioner as he was suspended by the president, saying that it was not relevant at the stage that the general secretary was competent or not but the admit able fact was that he successfully brought in the knowledge of the election commissioner about the court order.
He prayed the court that keeping in view the admitted facts and under provisions of the law, the election process conducted by the respondent No.1 and 2 be declared null and void in the interest of justice and the provision of democratic rights to his clients and a contempt proceeding be initiated against the respondents to ensure that nobody dares to disrespect the court orders in the future.
Former Assistant Advocate General Pervez Mughal while representing the secretary general, objected to the respondent’s No 1 and 2 counsel saying that he administered the oath to the successful candidates declared in violation of the court order and despite being President of the Bar, instigated the respondents to violate the court order. He added that the members of the Bar were supposed to ensure implementation of the court orders and learned counsel had violated the code of ethics.
After his objection, the learned counsel of the respondent No. 1 and 2 left the courtroom. The learned Judge after the conclusion of the arguments reserved the Judgment for Saturday.
Trending
- Israeli divisions deepen over future of Gaza
- Hypertension Day seminar held in DHQ Hospital Wana, took out awareness walk.
- 13 of a family die, truck plunges into ravine
- PM expresses concern over situation of Pakistani students in Bishkek
- Ex AJK SCBA Chief Raja Inam accuses AJK PM Anwar-ul-Haq of giving peaceful rights movement a violent turn in the State
- Zardari’s decision to nominate Governors for both provinces is a great decision: Zahir Latif
- CGH organizes a walk on World Blood Pressure Day
- Threatening to Govt officers remained the same in KP by PTI leadership Mansehra