sharif2uys/supreme-court-of-pak-judgments huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.  
 
 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.33 OF 2013 
 
 
 
Asaf Fasihuddin Khan Vardag. 
Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
Government of Pakistan and others. 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. Asaf Fasihuddin Khan Vardag, ASC 
(in person) 
 
On Court’s Notice: 
 Mr. Munir A. Malik, AGP with  
Capt. Rtd. Shujaat Azeem in person.  
 
For Respondents No.1 & 2 
: Mr. Shah Khawar, Additional A.G.P. 
Qari Abdul Rashid, AOR 
 
  
For Respondent No.3 
(Air Marshal (R) Khalid Ch.) 
: Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gilani, Sr. ASC 
Air Marshal ® Khalid Chaudhry, DG, CAA 
Mr. Obaid ur Rehman Abbasi, Sr. Law Officer 
 
  
For Respondent No.4 
(Ch. Muhammad Munir) 
: Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr. ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
 
  
For Respondent No.5 
(M/s. Louis Berger) 
: Mr. Uzair Karamat Bhandari, ASC 
 
  
For Technical Associates 
: Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC 
 
For LTH (JV) 
: Kh. Haris Ahmad, Sr. ASC 
 
  
For M/s. China State  
Construction Engineering 
: Syed Ali Raza, ASC 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
 
  
For FWO 
: Mr. Asad Rajpoot, ASC 
 
 
  
For M/s. Sambu 
Construction & Sachal 
Engineering 
: Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR. 
Const. P. 33 of 2013 
2
 
  
For Habib Construction 
: Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
Raja Zafar Khaliq, ASC 
 
  
For M/s. Al-Tariq 
Construction 
: Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Sr. ASC 
 
  
For M/s. Ciemens 
: Mr. Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, ASC 
Mr. Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC 
 
  
For M/s. Xinjiang Beixin 
: Mr. Shahid Kamal Khan, ASC 
 
  
For M/s. Gammon Pakistan 
: Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Sr. ASC 
 
  
For M/s Izhar (Pvt) Ltd 
: Mr. Babar Ali, ASC 
 
  
Remaining Contractors 
: Nemo 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 25.07.2013. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
The learned Attorney General for Pakistan appeared alongwith Capt. 
(Retd.) Shujat Azim, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Aviation. He stated 
that he was appointed as the Advisor upon the desire of the Prime Minister 
and not by his own choice. It is also true that he had been Court-martialed 
upon the allegations of insubordination and not on account of any moral 
turpitude and further that he has resigned as the CEO of Royal Airport 
Services prior to occupying the office of Advisor to the Prime Minister.  
2. 
However, in view of the controversy that has erupted regarding his 
appointment he has decided to tender his resignation to the Prime Minister 
in order to avoid being embroiled further in such controversy.  
3. 
Be that as it may, let him tender his resignation and the learned 
Attorney General for Pakistan shall place on record the notification of the 
acceptance of his resignation in due course of time.    
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
     Judge 
 
 
     
     Judge 
Islamabad 
25.7.2013. 
M. Azhar Malik
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2013 & 
C.M.A NOs. 4319, 4873, 6556, 6444, 6901, 6492, 7518, 7550, 7673, 
7832,  7833, 6901, 4855 & 7122 OF 2013  
(Against involvement of Zafar Iqbal Gondal, Former Chairman, EOBI, DG Investment 
and DG HR etc in multibillion scam in the Employees Old Age Benefit Institute) 
 
In Attendance: 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior ASC 
Mr. M.Bilal, Senior ASC 
Syed Safdar Hussain, AOR 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR  
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR  
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR  
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, ASC 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior ASC 
Mian Abdur Rauf, ASC  
Mr. Irfan Qadir, ASC  
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, ASC 
Mr. Shahid Karim, ASC  
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC  
Ch. Afrasiab Khan, ASC 
Mr. Muhammad Ikram Ch. Sr. ASC  
Mr. Shah Khawar, Addl A.G. Pakistan 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG 
Mr. Qudratullah Khan, Dir FIA Lahore, 
Mr. Malik Javaid Ahmed, Dir (Law) FIA HQ 
Mr. Qaiser Masud, Dy Dir (Law) FIA HQ 
Ch. Zulfiqar Ali, Dy Dir (Law) FIA Lahore 
Mr. Qaisar Ashfaq, Dy Dir (SIU) FIA 
 
Date of Hearing: 06.01.2014 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
There is a written request for adjournment on behalf of Mr. 
Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Sr. ASC. Let the main petition be fixed for 
20.1.2014. The Director Law, FIA undertakes to submit the final report of 
investigation before the next date of hearing.  
CMA No. 7697/2013 
2. 
 
Through this application, it is prayed that an amount of Rs. 
52,527,187/- may be released to meet the expenses of salaries and 
allowance of DHA employees for the month of December, 2013. Subject 
to all just exceptions, this CMA is allowed. 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
6th of January, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI 
MR. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 73 OF 2011 
(Constitution petition under Article 184 of the 
Constitution against the appointment of incumbent 
chairman NAB) 
 
Ch. Nisar Ali Khan  
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Federation of Pakistan etc  
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
 
Assisted by Barrister Sharjeel Adnan Sh, 
Advocate and Syed Faraz Raza, Advocate 
 
For Respondent No. 3: 
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
On Court Notice: 
Mr. Irfan Qadir, Attorney General for Pakistan  
 
Barrister Sheryar Riaz, Advocate.  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
28.05.2013 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.- For the reasons to be 
recorded later in the detailed judgment, we hold and declare that 
consultation in the appointment of Chairman NAB was not made in 
accordance with Section 6 of the National Accountability Bureau 
Ordinance, 1999 and the law declared by this Court. Consequently, this 
Constitution petition is allowed, the impugned appointment of 
respondent No. 3 is declared to be without lawful authority and is set 
aside with immediate effect. The Federal Government is directed to make 
fresh appointment without further loss of time.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
  
Islamabad, the 
28th of May, 2013 
Riaz
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE NASIR-UL-MULK 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI 
MR. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN  
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2014 
(Constitution petition under Article 184 of the Constitution 
regarding seniority of the Judges of Lahore High Court, 
Lahore) 
 
Muhammad Aslam Awan, ASC 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Federation of Pakistan and others 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Zaka ur Rehman, ASC 
 
On Court Notice: 
Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Attorney General 
 
Kh. 
Saeed 
uz 
Zafar, 
Addl. 
Attorney 
General  
 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Deputy Attorney 
General 
 
Mr. Waqar Rana, ASC, Consultant to 
Attorney General 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
06.05.2014 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, CJ.- For reasons to be 
recorded later in the detailed judgment, we hold and declare as 
under:- 
i) 
that the inter se seniority of Judges of a High Court 
shall reckon from the order and date of their 
appointment as Additional Judges of that Court;  
 
ii) 
that the inter se seniority of Additional Judges of a 
High Court appointed vide the same order and date 
shall reckon from their seniority in age. If appointment 
of two or more service candidates is simultaneously 
Constitution Petition No. 9/2014 
2
made with that of the candidates from the Bar, the 
service Judges shall retain their existing seniority in 
the department regardless of their age, though that 
would be the determining factor in respect of their 
seniority viz a viz the candidates from the Bar. This 
principle has consistently been followed without 
exception ever-since the establishment of the High 
Courts in Pakistan and is even otherwise in accord 
with the equitable dispensation of justice.  
 
2. 
 
With the above observations and declaration, this 
petition is dismissed.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE (HJ-1)  
 
JUDGE (HJ-3) 
 
 
 
JUDGE (HJ-5)  
 
JUDGE (HJ-8) 
 
Islamabad, the 
6th of May, 2014 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhelo 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1285 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Lahore High 
Court at Rawalpindi Bench in W.P. No.3673/2019)  
 
 
 
Jahangir Khan 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
Khalid Latif 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ch. Abdul Khaliq Thind, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.08.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
              Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Petitioner is amongst 
the array of accused, who allegedly kidnapped Khalid Latif respondent 
along with his wife while the family was on way to Murree. The accused 
were clad in police uniform and ostensibly arrested and handcuffed the 
respondent for being an accused in some criminal case registered at 
Jhelum; they snatched valuables that included cash and gold 
ornaments. On way to Jhelum, the accused attempted to shift the 
respondent after crossing Mandra Toll Plaza when a contingent of 
Highway Patrolling Police was attracted to the scene and rescued the 
family, however, the accused managed to escape with the loot. A 
criminal case vide FIR No.249 was registered at Police Station 
Westridge Rawalpindi under various penal provisions that included 
section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on the basis whereof, 
a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was 
submitted in an Anti Terrorism Court at Rawalpindi. The accused 
motioned for remission of the case into regular jurisdiction, a request 
Civil Petition No.1285-2020  
2
conceded vide order dated 4.5.2018 by the learned Special Judge Anti-
Terrorism Court-II Rawalpindi, however, reversed vide impugned order 
dated 12.3.2020, vires whereof, are being assailed on the ground that 
the learned trial Judge had rightly remitted the case for trial in regular 
jurisdiction as the accusation even if admitted as gospel truth fails to 
disclose mischief of section 365-A of the Code, an offence exclusively 
triable by an Anti Terrorism Court. 
2. 
 
Heard. 
3. 
 
We have gone through the record annexed with the petition 
and do not consider it expedient to comment on the merits of the case 
lest it may cast its shadow upon the outcome of the trial. The High 
Court has discreetly attended the controversy leaving the fate of the 
case to be finally decided after recording statements of the prosecution 
witnesses, a course wisely suggested in the face of accusations leveled 
by the couple who allegedly endured the ordeal, with an option to the 
accused to re-agitate the issue afresh on the basis thereof, if need be. 
View taken by the High Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional 
error or flaw and, thus, calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave 
declined.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
3rd August, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.1499-L OF 2012 
 
 
Muhammad Imran 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
City District Government through DCO Faisalabad etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi, ASC 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Mr. Subah Sadiq Wattoo, A.A.G. Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
04.08.2016 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
Let the respondents as also the Government of Punjab to 
apprise this Court as to how the billboards/hoardings of such immense 
sizes which endangers the public life and property are permitted to be 
installed at public places, property, parks, roads, foothpaths and other 
such properties which are meant for public use and are annuity 
properties in nature, under what authority of law this is permissible. Let 
a concise statement be filed by the respondents as also by the 
Government of Punjab within 15 days. This order is being passed in line 
with the orders passed by this Court in a suo motu action about the 
billboards/hoardings and direction to be removed the same from the city 
of Karachi. Notice to the respondents as also the Government of Punjab. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the 
4th August, 2016 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Ghulam Raza/*
 



 
   









 


  






  



 
  

  








     









 



   




 




  

 
 

   





 

  

     


   

  
 
  





   




 
  
  

 

 


1




  









 
  
 




  


   






  

 


 





    


  



  

       
 



  









   

 
  



  





 
     



  
 
   

  




  


   


 
 
   


  





     





   
 


  
 


 


 
 




    

  


 
 






     

      









 
  
 
 


  
 

  







  



  


 

2
C.P.L.A. No. 1515/2016


   
      




 



  


 
 





  
 








    




  

   



  
 




  



  
 



 


 

  
 


  







   


 
  

 


 









 
 




 


3
C.P.L.A. No. 1515/2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN  
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
 
 
Civil Petition No.2117 of 2016 
(On 
appeal 
from 
the 
judgment 
dated 
28.6.2016 passed by the High Court of Sindh 
at Karachi in M.A. No.35/16) 
 
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority 
 
….Petitioner  
VERSUS  
Independent Media Corporation, Limited 
….Respondents  
 
 
For the petitioner: 
Mr. Kashif Hanif, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR (absent) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Absar Alam, Chairman, PEMRA 
 
For the respondent: 
Mr. Jam Asif Mehmood Lar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Qutab-ud-Din Saim Hashmi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For Respondents 1-3: Mr. Omair Syed Head (Litigation) 
 
Date of hearing:  
4.7.2016 
 
ORDER 
 
 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— At the very outset, the 
learned counsel for the parties agreed that let the main CPLA be 
decided in the following terms:- 
(i) 
That 
so 
far 
as 
the 
suspension 
of 
the 
show/program for three days by PEMRA is 
concerned, due to injunction order of the learned 
High Court of Sindh a very narrow margin of time 
is left and because the matter is listed for hearing 
today before the said Court, hence to that extent 
the petition has almost become infructuous.  
(ii) 
The rest of the four charges are still alive and to 
be inquired into/investigated by the COC and after 
receiving 
the 
recommendations 
the 
PEMRA 
(competent authority) would look into it while 
complying with all the rules and provisions of law 
CP 2117/16 
2 
on the subject and will also consider the effect of 
the apology to be tendered publically by the 
Channel and through print media.  
2. 
  
During course of hearing, it came to our notice that many 
other channels, like the one under consideration, have not installed the 
censoring devices, particularly time delaying mechanism to cut off and 
expunge the offending part of the live show/program and bring it in 
conformity with the PEMRA rules and provisions of the Ordinance.  
3. 
  
It was stated at the bar that a team of experts would soon 
inspect all the channels to ensure that such device i.e. time delaying 
mechanism is in place so that undesirable and offending programs or 
spoken words are not aired and the same are blocked.  
4. 
  
As the rest of the four allegations/charges fall within the 
domain of PEMRA, therefore, it may proceed with the same according 
to the law and rules on the subject and to conclude the matter as was 
agreed at the bar within 30 days, which shall commence after Eid 
holidays.  
 
Needless to remark that the respondent may submit reply within 
10 days, after Eid vacations.  
5. 
  
In view of these arrangements, the appeal filed by the 
respondent before the High Court of Sindh has become infructuous and 
may be disposed of accordingly.  
 
Petition is converted into appeal and disposed of.  
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the  
4th July, 2016 
Nisar/- 
Not Approved For Reporting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2408-L OF 2009 
(On appeal from the order dated 27.10.2009 passed 
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in ICA No. 
884/2009) 
 
Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafaz Dastoor  
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Federation of Pakistan and another 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Gorsi, in person 
 
For the Respondents: 
N.R.  
 
Date of Hearing:  
04.09.2013 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.- Leave is sought 
against the order dated 27.10.2009 vide which petitioner’s Intra 
Court Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in 
Chamber was dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge 
in chamber was upheld. Vide the latter order the learned High 
Court had dismissed petitioner’s Constitution petition, wherein 
following prayers were made:- 
“(iii) 
Respondent Federation be directed to command the 
Armed Forces of Pakistan to defend Pakistan against 
the external aggression currently carried out by the 
American Forces under NATO cover which are in 
occupation of Afghanistan. 
 
(iv) 
An authoritative declaration be made that USA is an 
Enemy State and for taking all measures provided by 
the domestic law such as expulsion of its diplomatic 
personnel and seizure of assets.  
 
CP 2408-L/2009 
2
(v) 
If Nuclear Arsenal is found to be incapable of 
protecting Pakistan and instead poses a threat to its 
survival, respondent Federation may be directed 
either to sell it in international market to the highest 
bidder or to place it in safe-custody of Iran.”  
 
2. 
 
A bare reading of the afore-quoted prayers would 
indicate that the issues raised in the Constitution petition and the 
prayer made are relatable to matters of foreign policy, defence and 
security of the country. Such issues are neither justiceable nor 
they fall within the judicial domain for interference under Article 
199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Any such 
interference by the courts would be violative of one of the 
foundational principles of the Constitution, which envisages a 
trichotomy of powers between the Legislature, Executive and 
Judiciary. That being so, we do not find the concurrent orders of 
the 
learned 
High 
Court 
to 
be 
exceptionable, 
warranting 
interference. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed 
and leave refused.  
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
4th of September, 2013 
Approved For Reporting  
Khurram
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No. 2661 of 2020 
(Against 
the 
order 
dated 
09.10.2020 
passed by the High Court of Sindh at 
Karachi in C.P. No.D 5564/2017) 
 
 
 
 
Sikandar Ali Qureshi 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
Chairman NAB Islamabad & others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, 
ASC  
 
Mr. Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
10.11.2020. 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Petitioner was 
admitted to bail in anticipation to his arrest in a NAB reference by the 
High Court of Sindh way back in the year 2017, however, the 
protection was recalled vide impugned order dated 09.10.2020 by the 
High Court on his having obstinately obstructed the conclusion of trial, 
otherwise at its fag-end. The learned Judges also noted with disdain 
petitioner’s unbecoming attitude towards the learned Presiding Judge 
of the Accountability Court, a young lady, attempting conscientiously 
to proceed with the trial. Petitioner’s appalling conduct as reported by 
the learned Judge has appropriately been visited by the learned Judges 
of High Court of Sindh as he deserved no less. Petition fails. Leave is 
declined. The petitioner is directed to surrender himself before the law; 
Criminal Petition No. 2661 of 2020 
2
in the event of default, he shall be taken into custody so as to face the 
trial.    
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
10th November, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2814  OF 2018  
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
5.7.2018 passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore in W.P.No.223299/18) 
 
Waseem Zafar Jutt 
 
 
…Petitioner (s) 
 
 
Vs.  
 
Mian Muhammad Amjad Joya etc. 
 …Respondent (s) 
 
  
 
 
  
For the Petitioner (s) 
: 
Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For Respondent No.1 
 
: 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, ASC 
 
Date of hearing 
: 
19.07.2018. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
  
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- In the instant 
case the nomination papers of the private 
respondent 
candidate 
were 
accepted. 
The 
petitioner who is also a candidate, filed an appeal 
before the learned Appellate Tribunal, which was 
rejected on the ground of non-maintainability, 
which order was maintained in the Constitution 
Petition by way of the impugned order dated 
5.7.2018. 
CP 2814/18 
2 
2.   
It is the case of the Petitioner that in 
terms of Section 63 of the Elections Act, 2017, an 
appeal can be filed by a candidate against 
acceptance of the Nomination Papers of an 
opposing candidate and the fora below have 
misconstrued the law. The learned counsel for the 
Respondent has contended that even otherwise the 
Constitutional Petition filed by the Petitioner was 
not maintainable, more particularly, in view of 
Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  
3.  
Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to 
consider the aforementioned questions. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
19th July, 2018 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Nisar/*