ISLAMABAD - The Election Commission of Pakistan yesterday challenged the Lahore High Court’s verdict which has declared delimitation process of different union councils of Rawalpindi void.
Munir Ahmad Paracha, counsel for ECP, on Monday moved a petition in the apex court against the LHC’s October 8 verdict, wherein it was declared that commission has no authority to create new union councils (UCs).
It is to be noted that the same nature of judgment was also issued by LHC single bench on October 1.
Later on, the commission had approached the SC against the high court’s verdict. The SC in that matter has declared that the commission has authority to create new UCs. However, the matter was again remanded to the LHC for deciding other questions, which were raised by the petitioners against delimitation process.
In present matter, the ECP while filing petition contends that the high court has misinterpreted the provisions of chapter II and III of the Punjab Local Government Act 2013, adding that the high court has also misunderstood the provisions of section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Act 2013.
The ECP has contended that the court did not take into consideration, the provision of Article 225 of the Constitution, the precedent law and Section 38 (1) of the Punjab LG Act.
The court failed to properly comprehend the scheme of election prescribed by the Act, the ECP said.
According to section 6, the government shall, through a notification, divide a district into rural and urban areas, demarcate and declare a local area consisting of a metropolitan corporation, district council, municipal corporation, and municipal committee, depending on the population of the urban area.
Explaining section 8, which deals with delimitation, the ECP has maintained that the power lies only with the government to determine the number of the UCs in a metropolitan or municipal corporation, district council and wards of a municipal committee.
The ECP further contended that it was the commission that should delimit the UCs and the wards.
The judgment drew a wrong inference from section 3(1)(d) of the act and misinterpreted section 10-A of the act to hold that there is no bar for court to review the delimitation of a UC after the announcement of election schedule, the appellant says.