LAHORE - PML-N Quaid Nawaz Sharif has announced not to approach the Supreme Court against the Lahore High Court decision declaring him ineligible to contest the by-election from NA-123. This was decided in a hurriedly-called meeting held in Jati Umra here on Monday. Nawaz presided over the meeting attended by party top leaders including PML-N Punjab President Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khosa, Khawja Saad Rafiq Lawyer's Wing central president Khawaja Mehmood Ahmed, Naseer Ahmed Bhutta, Sharif brother's lawyer Khawaja Haris Mehmood besides MNAs-elect and MPAs elects. The meeting jointly condemned the LHC decision. Insiders revealed that the meeting could not decide whether PML-N President and Chief Minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif would go to Election Commission or not. However, meeting decided that PML-N would not object if anyone challenged the decision in Supreme Court. The meeting also unanimously decided to stage protest demonstrations including in front of Punjab Assembly. A three-member bench of the Lahore High Court held on Monday that PML-N Quaid Mian Nawaz Sharif was not qualified to contest by-elections. The court,however, conditionally allowed his younger brother Shahbaz Sharif to continue to function on his office of the Chief Minister Punjab. Announcing a unanimous short order, the bench comprising Mr Justice Abdul Shakoor Piracha,Mr Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi and Mr.Justice M. Bilal Khan referred the petition against Shahbaz to Election Commission of Pakistan, requiring it to constitute an Election Tribunal to decide his eligibility. The Bench turned down the request of the petitioner to bar Shahbaz Sharif from holding the office of the Chief Minister of Punjab. It is not known that on what grounds LHC had disqualified Mian Nawaz Sharif because neither the court explained the reasons in this regard while pronouncing order nor a copy of written order was made available to the media persons despite the latter made a request to court staff in this regard. The PML-N lawyer Khawaja Mahmood Ahmed, again objected to the formation of Bench saying Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi had worked in office of PML-Q Senator Dr Khalid Ranjha who was to known have animosity towards Nawaz Sharif. He further said Justice Shabbar was denied elevation during second term of Nawaz Sharif as the then Prime Minister when Justice Syed Sajjad Ali Shah was working as Chief Justice of Pakistan. 'Such background is also ,adding, to the perception  of Justice Shabbar being biased'. The bench ,however, refused to hear their objection and asked them to adopt a proper way and file 'objection' application in LHC's registrar's office. The meeting lasted for one hour, top leadership deliberated over the unfavourable development. They showed great reservations over the frosty attitude of the PPP. Sources disclosed that some senior party leaders suggested that party should not compromise over the issue. They also forwarded their advice that party leadership should adopt the policy of do and die instead of adopting the policy of negotiation. Addressing the meeting, Nawaz Sharif said that treacherous conspiracies were still being hatched against the democracy. He said that such plotting would continue unless Musharraf had occupied in the President House. He said that unless judges were not restored, justice could not prevail in the country. Shahbaz Sharif said "whether decision are taken against us, we will not budge an inch of our principled stance regarding restoration of judges including deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. We will never surrender even if we have to sacrifice of our government " he concluded. Khawaja filed the application in office but its fate is not known as the bench while pronouncing order did not say a single word about the objections. The entire controversy started when an Election Tribunal comprising Mr Justice Muhammad Akram Qureshi and Mr Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim failed to reach a consensus verdict on appeal against acceptance of Sharifs papers by Returning officers and delivered a split decision on May 31, the last date for deciding appeals. One judge(Justice Tariq) allowed Sharifs to contest polls while Justice Qureshi disqualified them. In the wake of split order, the Chief Election Commission of Pakistan had allowed Sharifs to participate in elections. Noor Elahi, an independent candidate from NA-123, Lahore had moved this petition against Mian Nawaz Sharif. And against Shahbaz Sharif, a freelance journalist Shahid Orakzai and a voter Syed Khurram Shah filed petitions challenging his unopposed victory from PP-48 Bhakkar and his candidature for PP-10, Rawalpindi. Earlier on Saturday, a full bench consisting of Mr Justice Fazal-e-Miran Chouhan, Mr Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Mr Justice Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon was broken after Mahmood objected to the effect that one member of the bench was a close relative of PML-Q President Ch. Shujaat Hussain while the other judge was closely associated with PML-Q Senator Dr. Khalid Ranjha. Raza Kazim advocate, the counsel for the petitioner, Khurram Shah, who had challenged qualification of Shahbaz Sharif to contest the election, said he had filed an amended petition for which the bench may issue notices to the respondents to fulfil the required criteria. Although the bench did not issue notices on the amended plea, it heard all sides, including a Deputy Attorney General and lawyers defending candidature of the Shahbaz Sharif on behalf of PML(N). Kazim said his objections were not taken into account when the Eection Tibunal handed down a split decision on his client's objections against Shahbaz Sharif. He said that the election law provided formation of a three-member Election Tribunal in case two-member tribunal fails to decide appeals unanimously. While Ashtar Ausaf and Khawaja Haris advocates said the petitioner did not advance arguments before the tribunal and could not seek decision in his favour because he had no locus standi to challenge the candidature of Shahbaz. While Kazim argued that he was not praying the court to disqualify Shahbaz Sharif or annul the notification of his victory but a direction for the completion of the process of scrutiny of a candidate. The process of scrutiny was not completed, as his objections remained unheard. He pleaded that according to Section 5 (a) of the Peoples Representation Act 1976, his client, a Pakistani voter, had the right to challenge the candidature of Shahbaz Sharif. He said that the tribunal, under the said section, would have to adjudicate objections against a candidate even if the objector was not a candidate. Raza Kazim went on to say that certain provisions of Representation of Peoples Act 1976 were contrary to the Constitution and they are required to be struck down or amended. He pointed out that in case of split decision by Election Tribunal, the election appeals would deem to have been rejected under Sub-section 6 of Section 14, which is contrary to the Constitutional provisions being of discriminatory nature. The counsel pointed out that as per election schedule issued by ECP under Sub-section 5 of Section 14, May 31 was fixed as the last date to decide the appeals but the Appellate Tribunal failed to reach a consensus decision and pronounced a split verdict. He argued that as the ECP had power to issue election schedule therefore, it had the discretionary power to make changes in it as well. He said, therefore, the ECP should have extended the last date for deciding appeals and constituted a three-member appellate tribunal as the ECP had the power to do so under RPA, 1976. When advocate Akram Sheikh, on behalf of Speaker Punjab Assembly, started his arguments, he had a conflict with Mr Justice M. Bilal Khan as he (Sheikh) tried to establish his skills in contesting election matters. The judge asked him to be on point. As according to judge, Akram Sheikh, whenever, spoke started with his own appreciation and his tone was also very loud. Akram Sheikh, addressing the judge, said he should not be personal and should use dignified language. 'And if you say I am loud, I would say you are louder than me', Sheikh said. Then Justice Piracha intervened and asked him to resume with proceedings. Resuming his arguments, Sheikh said Section 5 (a) did not contain word 'person' but referred to 'source', and asked why Justice Bilal said the Section contained word person. Justice Bilal told the counsel that he did not refer to word 'person' and he should not name judges in such a manner. Justice Piracha again intervened, stating: 'I had been referring to it (word person) not my learned brother (Justice Bilal)'. Later, a Deputy Attorney General Raja Abdur Rehman (DAG) advanced his arguments and opposed the petition of Khurram Shah and requested the court to dismiss the petition. He said the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and his petition should be dismissed. With the submissions of DAG, the bench rose to announce the verdict. The bench heard the arguments till 1:00 pm, when the judgment was reserved and it was announced after five hours at about 6 pm. As the verdict was announced, the PML-N workers and lawyers present in the court room came out and started chanting slogans against President Gen (Retd) Pervez Musharraf and PCO judges. Objections raised against the candidature of Mian Nawaz Sharif pointed out that an Anti-Terrorism Court of Karachi, under Section 402-B of the PPC, read with Section 7 of ATA, had awarded him life imprisonment and fine of Rs 500,000. And his (Nawaz) conviction, as well as, the sentence was upheld by the learned Appellate Court in special criminal appeal. Besides, he was convicted by an Accountability Court, Attock Fort, in reference No 2 of 2002 decided in July 2007 under Section 10, read with Section 9-A (V) of the NAB Ordinance and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and fine of Rs 20 million. The Accountability Court had also declared Nawaz Sharif disqualified for 21 years from seeking or being elected, chosen, appointed as member or representative of any public office or any authority of the Local Government of Pakistan. According to petitioners, the convictions of former Prime Minister were still intact because these were not set aside by any court of law till date and it was a settled law that only sentence awarding punishment was pardoned, reprieved, remitted, suspended or commuted, but the conviction remained intact. Challenging the eligibility of Shahbaz Sharif, it was alleged that he had been publicly propagating his biased opinion and acting prejudicial to the integrity of the judiciary, besides defaming and ridiculing the Armed Forces. He was also defaulter of different banks, the petitioner alleged.