AGL38.7▲ 0.88 (0.02%)AIRLINK130.73▼ -2.5 (-0.02%)BOP5.65▲ 0.01 (0.00%)CNERGY3.83▲ 0.06 (0.02%)DCL8.68▼ -0.18 (-0.02%)DFML42.14▲ 1.2 (0.03%)DGKC87.99▼ -1.7 (-0.02%)FCCL34.91▼ -0.15 (0.00%)FFBL66.59▲ 0.05 (0.00%)FFL10.56▲ 0.43 (0.04%)HUBC108.6▲ 2.04 (0.02%)HUMNL14.66▲ 1.33 (0.10%)KEL4.77▼ -0.08 (-0.02%)KOSM6.97▲ 0.17 (0.03%)MLCF41.89▲ 0.36 (0.01%)NBP59.78▲ 1.13 (0.02%)OGDC183.25▲ 2.61 (0.01%)PAEL26.23▲ 0.61 (0.02%)PIBTL5.9▲ 0.1 (0.02%)PPL146.4▼ -1.37 (-0.01%)PRL23.5▲ 0.34 (0.01%)PTC16.35▲ 1.15 (0.08%)SEARL68.2▼ -0.49 (-0.01%)TELE7.2▼ -0.03 (0.00%)TOMCL35.8▼ -0.14 (0.00%)TPLP7.72▲ 0.36 (0.05%)TREET14.2▲ 0.05 (0.00%)TRG50.55▼ -0.2 (0.00%)UNITY26.75▲ 0.3 (0.01%)WTL1.22▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

SC disposes of plea against Feb 8 polls over petitioner’s absence

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

ISLAMABAD – Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition against the February 8 general elections in the country.

A three-member headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Mussarat Hialali issued the ruling after the petitioner failed to appear before court.

The apex court had also imposed a fine of Rs500,000 on the petitioner named Ali Khan over his absence from the hearing.

The petitioner had demanded an investigation into the polls rigging and fresh elections in the country.

During the previous hearing, CJP Qazi Faez Isa had directed the relevant officials to produce the petitioner in person before the court for hearing of the plea seeking annulment of February 8 general elections.

“Where is the petitioner?,” asked the chief justice as the hearing commenced.

Justice Mazhar remarked that petitioner Brig (retd) Ali Khan had moved a plea to withdraw his petition against the general elections on February 13.

The CJP had remarked, “It is not possible. We will hear this petition. Such joke cannot be with the Supreme Court,”.

“Present the petitioner before this court no matter where he is. They file plea and then disappear. Is it a joke?,” CJP Isa further remarked.

The court staff had apprised the court that the petitioner was approached through his cell number and through his address but they could not reach him.

Related Posts