1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition for review of the order passed by this Court on 5-10-1988 in Civil Appeal No,317 of 1988 is barred by 143 days. However, for the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay we would condone the delay and proceed to dispose of this petition on merits.
2. ' The main ground urged by Sh.Shaukat Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition for review, is that after this Court having held that the National Assembly coming into existence pursuant to the General Elections of 1985 was illegally dissolved by the President on May 29, 1988, the said National Assembly could not thereafter be restrained from continuing to function till the expiry of its normal term of 5 years, namely, until March 1990; and in so doing the Court has committed an error with regard to the nature of the orders it can pass under Article 199 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this is a fit case for review.
3. ' We do not agree. It is correct that the Court did find that the order of dissolution passed by the President on May 29, 1988, was not justified in law because "the prerequisites prescribed for the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 58 (2) (b) did not exist" and, therefore, the order of dissolution did not fall "within the four corners of Article 58 (2) (b) of the Constitution". However, it refused the further declaration that the said order is of "no legal effect" and, accordingly, the order of dissolution was allowed to continue and the consequential order for holding of elections for a fresh National Assembly endorsed and reinforced. This was a conscious and deliberate decision for which full reasons were given in the impugned judgment. The petitioner may or may not agree with those reasons. But where a conscious and deliberate decision has been made with regard to the nature of orders which it is empowered to pass under a provision of law (Article 199 in this case) only, because another view with regard thereto is canvassed cannot and does not constitute a ground for review.
4. ' Sh.Shaukat Ali, however, in this connection submitted that the main reason given for not restoring the dissolved National Assembly and for endorsing the order for fresh elections was the assumption that the holding of the new elections was in the "collective good". But this assumption was misconceived. In this connection, he submitted that under the Constitution persons elected to the National Assembly must be "sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen", [Article 62(f)] but the members who were now constituting the National Assembly besides being less representatives than the members of the dissolved assembly (in so far as the turn out of electors for elections to the previous Assembly was larger than the turn-out during the General Elections of 1988) they are neither sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen but, on the other hand, totally irresponsible, dishonest and corrupt. We cannot accept this sweeping generalization. At the most, it is a matter of opinion and this c can, in no way, affect the basis on which the Court acted while passing the impugned order.
5. ' It was further submitted that the new National Assembly is not a legally constituted body because the Delimitation of Constituencies (Amendment) Ordinance 1988 which was promulgated on 21-7- 1988 by the President (late General Ziaul Haq) to enable the Election Commission to proceed with delimitation work in accordance with the 1981 population census was promulgated without the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, the Delimitation of Constituencies (Second Amendment)
6. Ordinance, 1988 (Ordinance VIII of 1988) promulgated on 5-10-1988 by President Ghulam Ishaque Khan was also issued without the advice of the Prime Minister and in so far as the advice of the Prime Minister is a pre-condition to the promulgation of an Ordinance the said two Ordinances were illegal, the delimitation of the constituencies taken in pursuance thereof was without lawful authority and the members elected to the National Assembly from the constituencies as delimited under the said Ordinance were not lawfully elected members. Similarly, the amendment made in Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 through Ordinance XVI of 1988 making production of identity cards by electors to be a condition precedent to their eligibility to cast their votes, disfranchised millions of voters. This Ordinance too was promulgated without the advice of the Prime Minister. Thus, the present National Assembly is neither a representative body nor is it lawfully elected.
7. ' These questions, we are afraid, do not arise out of the impugned judgment. They were neither raised in Haji Saifullah Khan's Appeal (C.A.No,317 ID of 1988) nor accordingly decided therein.
8. ' It was then contended that the effect of the dissolution of the National Assembly having been found to be unjustified in law but the election allowed to be held in the "collective good" was that the National Assembly elected at the elections of 16th November, 1988 in place of the aforesaid National Assembly must he deemed to have been elected only for the remaining life of the earlier National Assembly i.e, only for the period upto March, 1990.
9. ' This plea is also one on which review of the earlier order of this Court cannot he granted. It is merely the petitioner's interpretation of the impugned I E order and not a ground on which the said order can be found to suffer from any error or defect.
10. ' The upshot is that no ground exists on which the impugned judgment of this Court might warrant review. This petition must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly. Dismissed hereby.