' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution read with Article 187 thereof against the order dated 4-10-2013 of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers of the Lahore High Court at Multan, passed in Writ Petition No.11981 of 2013. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-- "Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner contends that election petition is pending before Election Tribunal, Multan where the petitioner is respondent and is represented by him.
(1) Learned counsel for the petitioner intends to proceed to perform Hajj and for that purpose he has been granted general adjournment by this Court from 2-10-2013 to 20-11-2013. Such request for adjournment was placed before the learned Election Tribunal but the same has been refused.
(2) It is right of every litigant to have the legal assistance of his own choice. In order to represent the petitioner, he has elected Mian Ahmad, Advocate as a counsel and he should not be deprived of his such right to be presented by the counsel of his own choice and in case the refusal on the part of the Tribunal is allowed to be remain in field, the petitioner's right to be represented by the counsel of his own choice and in case the refusal on the part of the Tribunal is allowed to be remain in field, the petitioner's right to be represented in a fair and transparent manner would be jeopardized.
(3) Issue notice to the respondents.
(4) In the meanwhile, the proceedings before the learned Election Tribunal shall remain stayed".
' Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that subject to all just exceptions the High Court may have not granted open-ended stay i.e. For indefinite period in view of the provisions of section 67(1A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 read with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Malik Muhammad Usman Achakzai v. Election Tribunal, Balochistan (PLD 2010 SC 943) and the judgment dated 28th October, 2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.669-L of 2013.
2. We have already discussed in detail section 67(1A) of the ROPA, 1976 in our judgment in Civil Appeal No.669-L of 2013 titled Malik Umar Aslam v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik, etc. (2014 SCM R 45). The relevant paragraphs from the same are reproduced as under:- (.11) The purpose of noting the above facts is that under the provisions of section 67(IA) of ROPA, the decision of election petition is required to be taken within four months from its receipt, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
67. (1) ............
(IA) The Election Tribunal shall proceed with the trial of the election petition on day to day basis and no adjournment shall be granted to any party for more than seven days and that too on payment of costs as the Tribunal may determine and the decision thereof shall be taken within four months from its receipt: Provided that where a petition is not decided within four months, further adjournment sought by any party shall be granted only on payment of special cost of ten thousand rupees per adjournment and adjournment shall not be granted for more than three days. Provided further that if the Tribunal itself adjourns it shall record reasons for such adjournment: Provided also that where delay in the proceedings is occasioned by any act or omission of a returned candidate or any other person acting on his behalf the Tribunal itself or on application of the aggrieved party, shall after issuance the show cause notice to the returned candidate, within fifteen days from the date of show cause notice may order that the returned candidate has ceased to perform the functions of his office either till the conclusion of the proceedings or for such period as the Tribunal may direct.
(12) It has been noticed that not only in the instant case but in so many other identical cases pertaining to elections. Timely decisions are not taken by the Election Tribunals; because, inter alia, Election Tribunals are ordinarily presided by learned. Judges of the High Courts who remain unable to conclude matters expeditiously on account of their other judicial commitments, or :because of delaying tactics employed by respondents who, having been declared as returned candidates, enjoy the status of Member of the National or Provincial Assembly. We are of the considered opinion that, as held by this Court in Muhammad Usman Achakzai v. Election Tribunal Balochistan (PLD 2010 SC 943), such delays in disposal of election petitions before the Tribunal in fact deprives a large number of electors of the constituency to have their due representation in the elected Houses, particularly in those matters where a whole term has been enjoyed by a winning candidate, who may later turn out to be disqualified on any count. Thus, delay causes the people of constituency to be represented by a person who is not duly elected. This clearly negates the principle of democratic system of Government. There is wisdom in fixing the period for decision of such cases, namely, that there should be no uncertainty for the persons, who have been elected or who have challenged the election before the Tribunal or the Court and after expeditious disposal of the same. They should consume all their energies for the welfare of the people whom they represent, instead of wasting time in pursuing such matters before the Courts.
This principle was reaffirmed by this Court in Workers' Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 681). Furthermore, in the case of Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Fida Hussain Dero (PLD 2004 SC 452) this Court held that it is a mandatory requirement of ROPA that Election Tribunal shall proceed with the trial of the election petition on day-to-day basis and the decision thereof shall be taken within four months from its receipt as provided under section 67(IA) ibid. This Court further held that the contention of the appellant in that case that fair hearing was not afforded to him was without merit and in fact spoke volumes of the appellant's propensity to prolong litigation at any cost.
(13) In light of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that a legal duty has been cast upon the Election Tribunal to reach a conclusion expeditiously by following stringent/coercive measures of imposing a cost and assigning the reasons if cases are adjourned by the Tribunal. To this end the Tribunal is even empowered to declare that a returned candidate who is delaying the proceedings of the Tribunal ceases to be a member of the Parliament/Provincial Assembly, either till the conclusion of the proceedings or for such period as the Tribunal may direct.
(14) In this vein, it is pertinent to note that the provisions of section 67(IA) are mandatory in nature.
This is evident as the said section contains penal consequences for taking adjournments and failing to decide an election petition within four months. In this regard it is instructive to have recourse to the decision of this Court in the case of Maulana Nur-ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalili (2000 SCMR 1305), wherein it was held that:-- "7. ... No doubt there exists no faultless acid test or a universal rule for determining whether a provision of law is mandatory or directory and such determination by and large depends upon the intention of Legislature and the language in which the provision is couched but it is by now firmly settled that where the consequence of failure to comply with the provision is not mentioned the provision is directory and where the consequence is expressly mentioned the provision is mandatory. ..."
' In the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Jamshed All (2001 SCMR 1001) this Court held as under:- "13. It is an established principle of law that where the Legislature has provided a penalty/consequences for the noncompliance, the said provision would be mandatory in nature and where such consequences are not provided it would be termed as directory..."
' Similarly, in the case of Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 SC 362) it was held as under:- "10. ... ...The Court is always empowered to ensure that the law under which proceedings have been initiated before it stands complied with fully particularly in the cases where non-compliance of mandatory provision prescribes a penalty... ...
' Furthermore, in the matter of: HUMAN RIGHTS CASES NOS.4668 OF 2006, 1111 OF 2007 and 15283-G of 2010 (PLD 2010 SC 759). Relevant extract therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow: - "12. ... ... It is to be noted that non-adherence to legislative provisions other than the Constitution is permissible, provided it does not entail penal consequences as there are two types of statutes/legislation, i.e. Mandatory and directory. As far as mandatory provision of law is concerned, same is required to be enforced strictly without interpreting/construing it in any manner liberally. ...
(15) In light of the aforementioned case-law, it is abundantly clear that section 67(IA) is a mandatory provision of law that entails penal consequences for non-compliance."
3. The contesting respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Siddique Khan Baloch) entered appearance on the previous date of hearing i.e. 29-10-2013 but today he is not in attendance despite notice.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The contentions so raised by him require consideration, therefore, leave to appeal is granted. The appeal arising out of this petition shall be listed for hearing after three weeks. In the meanwhile, operation of the order under challenge dated 4-10-2013 is suspended. The Election Tribunal is directed to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with the law laid down in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan enabling him to communicate the above decision to all Election Tribunals working in the Country with further observations that they should decide the election matters expeditiously strictly in accordance with law noted herein above.