' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The instant petition, for leave to appeal, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the order dated 5-6- 2008 for failure of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, to grant interim relief to the petitioner in Civil Miscellaneous Application No,2 of 2008 in Writ Petition No,6470 of 2008.
2. Precisely stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent No,1 being desirous of contesting the bye-election from PP-48 Bhakkar-II filed his nomination papers for the said constituency. The candidature of respondent No,1 was objected to by the petitioner on various grounds alleging that the respondent propagated and acted in the manner prejudicial to integrity and independence of judiciary, he defamed and brought into ridicule the judiciary: and submitted incorrect declaration as such he was disqualified under the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well as under section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Returning Officer PP-48 Bhakkar-II rejected the objections and proceeded to accept the nomination form of respondent No,1 vide order dated 16-5-2008. The order of Returning Officer was challenged before the Election Appellate Tribunal for PP-48 Bhakkat- II in Lahore High Court, Lahore comprising of two learned Judges of the Lahore High Court. The Tribunal delivered a split worded judgment wherein one of the learned Judges/Member accepted the appeal and rejected the nomination form of respondent No,1 while another learned Judge/Member of the Tribunal maintained the order of the Returning Officer. On reference, the Election Commission of Pakistan, respondent No,4, took a view that since the appeal could not be disposed of within the period specified in the Election Schedule, the same shall be deemed to have been rejected as per the provision contained in section 14(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. Consequently, the Election Commission of Pakistan vide notification dated 3rd June, 2008 published the name of respondent No,1 as a returned candidate to the said constituency. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through Writ Petition No,6479 of 2008. Along with the petition, the petitioner also moved C.M.A. No,2 of 2008 praying therein for suspension of orders of respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4, suspension of the operation of notification issued in favour of respondent No,1, and restraining him from taking oath as Member of Provincial Assembly. The High Court, vide order dated 5-6-2008 proceeded to issue notices on the petition and C.M. To the respondent for 18-6-2008 but failed to pass interim order against the respondents as prayed by the petitioner, hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Vide order dated 6-6-2008 notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents as well as Attorney-General for Pakistan.
4. In the concise statement filed by the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, plea was taken that keeping in view the consistent practice of this Court, interference with the interlocutory order was not called for. It was accordingly prayed that the decision by Lahore High Court, Lahore, be awaited and for the time being present petition being, premature be dismissed.
5. We have heard Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Attorney-General for Pakistan. Respondent No,1 however, chose not to appear and participate in the proceedings.
6. Meanwhile, applications under Order V, Rule 2(2) read with Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders, 1980, were filed on behalf of Speaker of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab and the Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary praying therein for impleading them as respondents. Though the said applications were at initial stage yet in the interest of justice, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court were provided opportunity of hearing as a matter of grace out of sheer indulgence.
7. It was strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner that vide order dated 1-12-2007 passed by Returning Officer 141 Lahore-V and PP-142 Lahore VI and NA-119 Lahore-II whereby respondent No,1 was adjudged disqualified, was not challenged before a proper forum by the respondent, therefore, the same had attained finality. In the circumstances, acceptance of the nomination forms of the respondent at the subsequent stage without any change in the situation was patently illegal, and violative of law. It was further contended that the Election Commission acted in hasteful manner as it could have extended and revised the schedule for adjudication of the controversy by a three members Tribunal- in view of the difference of opinion between the two learned members of the Election Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner against learned Lahore High Court, Lahore is that a long adjournment was given in the matter without grant of any interim relief to the petitioner which resulted in obtrusive failure of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court causing miscarriage of justice.
8. Conversely, learned Attorney-General for Pakistan canvassed that interference by this Court at an interlocutory stage would be against the consistent practice. He, therefore, objected to the maintainability of the petition pleading that the same was premature.
9. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced before us and glanced at the available material.
10. Quite obviously a Full Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, is seized of the matter. Interference in a pending matter by this Court at an initial/interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances has to be avoided so as to adhere to the consistent and long standing practice of this Court as well as the principles of propriety. We, therefore, feel it appropriate and desirable to refrain from making indulgence of any sort in the pending lis, or for that matter, to make any observations upon the contentions put-forth, lest it may convey an impression of, neither prejudicing the parties or pre-empting the decision of the learned High Court.
11. Nevertheless it must be emphasized that a High Court looking to the facts of a case of which it is seized, should not hesitate in exercising it's jurisdiction by passing justifiably reasonable interim orders, if so warranted in the circumstances as per established principles of law. However, if passing of interim orders at the relevant moment without notice was not possible on account of lack of judicious propriety, date for notice to opposite party must not be unreasonably long. The impugned order passed by learned Lahore High Court, whereby after notice to respondents the petition as well as the C.M was adjourned to a long date, prima facie appears to have caused a bit, of grievance to the petitioner. Accordingly, we genuinely feel that issuance of direction for expeditious disposal of the Writ Petition pending before the Lahore High Court, Lahore has become aptly inevitable.
12. We, therefore, while disposing of this petition, would like to direct learned Lahore High Court, Lahore to decide the petitioner's Writ Petition within two days of the receipt of this order. The office shall immediately notify the order to the learned High Court.
13. In view of the above order, the C.M.A. No,1474 of 2008 moved by the petitioner, and C.M.As.Nos.1495 of 2008 and 1496 of 2008 having been rendered infructuous, stand dismissed.
14. These are the reasons for the short order passed on 12-6-2008.