IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY;, J.- The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner and respondent, No.2 contested the last local councils election from Ward No.25, Municipal Committee, Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner was declared elected as a result of polling held on 20th May. 1998. Respondent No.2 challenged the election through election petition which came up for hearing on the file of respondent, No. 1 who vide order dated 03.7.1998 directed re- counting. The order has been challenged through the present writ petition.
2. The writ petition was admitted to hearing. Notices were issued to the respondents. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.G. Appeared for respondent No.1 & 3 to 6 while Mr. Aamer Touseef, Advocate represented respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Election Tribunal neither framed issues nor recorded evidence before passing the order of re-count.
4. On the other hand. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.G. Argued that in view of. The clear allegations in the election petition the only way out to resolve the controversy was re-counting. It is added that possibly there could be no evidence which could have been recorded before passing the impugned order. Mr. Aamer Touseef, Advocate for respondent No.2 adopted these arguments.
5. 1 have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Respondent No.2 has clearly alleged that the election staff in collusion with the petitioner committed irregularities in counting. It was alleged that on one hand valid votes of respondent No.2 were rejected while on the other hand invalid votes of the petitioner were counted. I have asked the learned counsel (hat in view of these facts what evidence possibly could have been led by the parties but he failed to give satisfactory reply. The question whether the allegations made by the respondent No.2 were correct or not could only be determined by recounting. It is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise this objection before the Election Tribunal as to the count of particular vote or votes either way. The same should be decided in accordance with law by the Election Tribunal.
6. The Legislature in its on wisdom has not provided any appeal against such orders. The spirit of the law cannot be allowed to be defeated by entertaining Constitutional petition against interim orders because if that is done then it would be difficult to decide the election petitions.
7. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed in limine.