IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Const. Petition No.  D-6125 / 2015

ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGE        

For hearing of C.M.A. No. 32350/2015

28.10.2015   

                        Mr. Abdullah Nizamani, advocate for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Mukesh Kumar Karara, Addl: A.G.

                        Mr. Abdullah Hanjrah, Law Officer, Election Commission.

                        Mr. Subhan Ali Shoro, Assistant Commissioner / R.O.M.C. Tando Muhammad Khan.

              Through this contempt application, the petitioner is seeking implementation of the order of this Court dated 06.10.2015.  On 06.10.2015  this petition was disposed of by passing the following orders:-

“The case of the petitioner is that when petitioner went to the concerned office to see list of candidates, his name was not listed. The concerned Retuning Officer shall issue fresh nomination papers to the petitioner which shall be filled-in and submitted on 07.10.2015 by 4.00 p.m. then it shall be scrutinized so that the petitioner may be able to file appeal by 07.10.2015 in case his nomination papers are rejected.”

              Apparently, the above order was passed on the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that when he went to the concerned office to see the list of candidates, his name was not listed, however, today Returning Officer, present in Court, has submitted a statement which shows that the petitioner for the first time approached him seeking issuance of nomination papers on 23^rd September by then the last date for submission of nomination forms has already passed. This fact was not disclosed to this Court when the order was obtained on 06.10.2015. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner also on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the petitions in which relief was granted to some other persons. Admittedly the decision in other petitions was in personam and not in rem. Even otherwise when a right is not availed at the appropriate stage, it gets extinguished. The judgment reported in PLD 1987 SC 145 can be referred to in this regard with considerable advantage.  In the circumstances no case for contempt is made out. Order dated 06.10.2015 was itself obtained on the basis of incorrect pleas  after going though the statement of the Returning Officer. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

                                                                                                                 CHIEF JUSTICE

             J U D G E

Zahid Baig