MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--The facts of the case are duly narrated in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber. The order of the Election Commission of Pakistan directing the re-counting was passed without hearing respondents Nos.4 and 5, who challenged the said order through Writ Petition No,5288 of 2005 and succeeded.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the Election Commission of Pakistan has the powers under the provisions of rule 36 (6) (2) of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules 2005, and resultantly, could validly direct for the re-counting; it is further submitted that respondents Nos.4 and 5, have duly participated in the recounting process and after having lost in the re- counting, could not challenge the order on account of the estoppel and also that because the order had been acted upon, therefore, the rule of locus penitential was duly attracted. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed upon the cases reported as Mushtaq Ahmed, v. Atta Muhammad (2002 CLC 409) and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman v.
Inayat Rasool (2003 SCM R 1128).
2. We have heard leaned counsel for the petitioners. Without going into the question, whether the Election Commission has or otherwise, the jurisdiction to direct for the re-counting but confining ourselves to the validity of the such order, it is undisputed fact that the re-counting order was passed by the Election Commission without hearing the other side. It is settled law that no one shall be condemned unheard and any order passed in violation of the rule of natural justice, is void and therefore, no superstructure can be built thereupon, resultantly, neither the rules of locus penitential nor the estoppel are applicable to the instant case. Anyhow, the appellants have the remedy before the Election Tribunal by filing an election petition, as has been held by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, therefore, no interference in the Intra-Court appeal is called for.
Dismissed.