MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 30.06.2016, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the application for rejection of election petition filed by the petitioner , with the following prayer:--- "Therefore, relying on the above submissions it is humbly prayed that the instant petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 30-06-2016 may very kindly be set-aside and the Election Petition of the respondents No. 2 & 3 may very kindly be dismissed being based on vague allega tions and deficient of disclosing of corrupt and illegal practices or any other illegal act.
It is further prayed that the proceedings before the Election Tribunal in the titled Election Petition may very kindly be stayed till the final adjudication of the instant writ petition."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is against law and facts and the election petition merits to be dismissed, being hit by Rule 70 and also not disclosing the commission of corrupt practices as enunciated in Sections 49 to 51 of Punja b Local Governments Act, 2013, or any other illegal act. Further submits that the Tribunal erred in law while passing the impugned order and not exercising the power vested under Order VII, Rule 11 . Adds that impugned order is not speaking and liable to be set-aside. He has placed reliance on case- law reported as Bilal Akbar Bhatti v. Election Tribunal, Mu/tan and 15 others (PLD 2015 Lahore 272) and Zahid lqbal v . Hafiz Muhammad Adnan and others (2016 SCMR 430 ).
3. Heard.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner is confronted with the judgm ent of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj and others v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others (2015 SCMR 233), to the effect that how writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give satisfactory' reply . Law on the subject is very clear that no writ lies against an interlocutory order passed by Election Tribunal, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj case (supra), operative part of which reads as under: 36 It follows the above discussion that the interlocutory orders passed by the Election Tribunal impugned before the High Court were not liable to be set aside in its Constitutional jurisdiction as the petitioners before the Court had a remedy available to them by way of appeal under section 67 of the Act after disposal of the election petitions. The impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-2-2014, therefore, is maintained and similar opinion of the High Court of Sindh in Ali Gohar Khan Mahar's case (supra) and of the High Court of Balochistan in Dur Muhammad Khan Nasar's case (supra) is affirmed. Appeals No. 727 to 730, 777, 778 and 273-I. of 2014 are consequently dismissed. Civil Petitions No, 1619-L and 909 of 2014 are also dismissed and leave declined. As regards Civil Petition No. 1244 of 2014, arising from an interim order of the High Court where the writ petition is still pending, the same is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned interim order of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-5-2014 is set aside and the High Court may disposed of the writ petition in the light of the principle laid down herein."
5. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is quite distinguishable and does not apply to the proposition in hand.
6. Following the ratio settle in Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj case (supra), this petition, being not maintainable, is hereby disposed of in the same terms.