IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
    (Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial  
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar  
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab  
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 18 OF 2019 
(Transfer of cases from Sindh High Court, Karachi and 
Lahore High Court, Lahore to Islamabad High Court) 
 
 
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and another  
 
… Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
 
Aam Log Ittehad & others  
… Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
For the petitioner(s) 
: Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC.  
 
  
Respondent No.2 
: In-person  
 
  
Date of hearing 
: 26.09.2019 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. This petition under 
Article 186A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”) seeks the transfer, inter alia, 
of a petition bearing Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 2019, 
titled Aam Loeg Ittehad and another vs.  The Election 
Commission of Pakistan and others from the Sindh High Court 
where it is pending to the Islamabad High Court. The said 
petition prays for the disqualification of four Members of the 
Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”) including the two 
petitioners. It is claimed therein that the petitioners’ 
Const.P.18 of 2019. 
2
appointment as Members of the ECP was made contrary to 
Article 207(2) of the Constitution prior to the expiry of two 
years after they ceased to hold the office of a Judge of the High 
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners objects that one of 
the requirements for entertaining such a challenge to the 
qualification to an incumbent of public office under Article 
199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is that the disputed office 
holder should be a person available within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the Court. As the petitioners work at the 
principal office of the ECP in Islamabad, therefore, the learned 
Sindh High Court is claimed to lack jurisdiction in the matter.  
2. 
 
The Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 2019 was 
filed in the Sindh High Court on 29.12.2018. Notices to the 
petitioners, who are impleaded as respondents No.3 & 4 
therein, were issued and on 23.04.2019. Ms. Rohaila Nazar, 
Advocate filed Waqalat Nama of Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC, 
Islamabad on behalf of the respondent No.4, who is petitioner 
No.1 before us. On 07.05.2019 Mr. Safdar, Advocate filed his 
Waqalat Nama on behalf of the respondent No.3 who is 
petitioner No.2 before us. Thereafter, Mr. Safdar, Advocate 
appeared in the High Court on 28.05.2019 on behalf of both 
the petitioners before us. However, on 10.06.2019 and the 
subsequent dates of hearing, Ms. Rohaila Nazar, Advocate 
appeared for respondent No.3 & 4 whilst holding the brief for 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC.  
Const.P.18 of 2019. 
3
3. 
 
At one stage of the proceedings, arguments of the 
petitioners were concluded on 27.06.2019 by the learned 
counsel for the petitioners in Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 
2019 but on 28.06.2019, the matter was adjourned to 
19.08.2019 after the vacations. Thereafter, the matter was 
fixed before another learned Bench and arguments by the 
learned counsel for the petitioners in Constitution Petition 
No.D-444 of 2019 were addressed again on 19.08.2019, 
27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019. On all these dates of hearing, the 
petitioners before us (respondents No.3 and 4 in Constitution 
Petition No.D-444 of 2019) were not represented by their 
appointed counsel but by his proxy, Ms. Rohaila Nazar, 
Advocate, who did not hold a Waqalat Nama of either of the 
petitioners before us. We are informed by the respondent No.2 
that the submissions by counsel for the two other challenged 
members of ECP were addressed on 28.06.2019 and 
02.09.2019 when Ms. Rohaila Nazar, Advocate adopted those 
arguments on behalf of the petitioners before us. At the end of 
the arguments on 02.09.2019, the learned Bench of the High 
Court reserved their judgment in the matter.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the 
judgment in the case has been reserved without grant of 
hearing to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has responded 
that notwithstanding a clear direction that the arguments in 
the matter shall be heard, the learned counsel for the 
petitioners did not show up even once throughout the 
Const.P.18 of 2019. 
4
proceedings and he was represented by a person holding his 
brief. It is in the said circumstances that the learned counsel 
for the petitioners pleads for the Constitution Petition No.D-
444 of 2019 pending before the Sindh High Court be 
transferred to the Islamabad High Court. 
5. 
 
Although comments by the petitioners were filed in 
the Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 2019, however, it is 
apparent that their counsel never attended such proceedings 
on their behalf. In the ordinary course, the learned High Court 
Bench would have in such a situation, issued a direction to the 
learned counsel to attend the proceedings to argue his case 
failing which the matter would be decided in his absence. This 
was not done; instead, it appears that the Bench treated Ms. 
Rohaila Nazar, Advocate as the counsel for the petitioners and 
closed the hearing after her statement adopting the arguments 
by the counsel for the respondents No.2 & 5. These 
respondents are the two other members of the ECP who are 
disputed in Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 2019. On that 
basis the hearing was closed and the judgment was reserved.  
6. 
 
We notice that the present petition is filed to 
overcome the consequence of default in appearance by the 
learned counsel for the petitioners before the Sindh High 
Court. Otherwise, the petitioners’ objection to the alleged lack 
of jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court in Constitution Petition 
No.D-444 
of 
2019 
has 
already 
been 
taken 
in 
their 
pleadings/comments filed in the Court. That objection has also 
Const.P.18 of 2019. 
5
been argued on behalf of the two other disputed Members of 
the ECP. Therefore, it is premature and inappropriate for us to 
hear that objection presently because the High Court seized of 
the matter shall soon be pronouncing its judgment thereon. 
However, such judgment when delivered shall lack the 
attribute of being passed after grant of an opportunity of a 
hearing to the petitioners. The absence of an opportunity being 
granted expressly is a deficiency that would seriously impair 
the effectiveness of the judgment. The right of hearing of a 
party to a lis is one of the fundamental principles of our 
jurisprudence which is guaranteed by Article 10A of the 
Constitution in its assurance of a “fair trial and due process” 
to a litigant. Accordingly, on the one hand, for the lack of an 
express opportunity of exercising such a right being expressly 
granted to the petitioners before us (respondents No.3 & 4 in 
the proceedings of Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 2019) and 
on the other hand, for the default of the petitioners to produce 
their counsel for making submissions before the Sindh High 
Court, we observe that it would suffice if the learned High 
Court Bench that has reserved the judgment may whilst 
writing the same take into consideration written submissions 
that are filed on behalf of the petitioners on or before 
30.09.2019. These written submissions shall not include any 
new material or plea. In case the petitioners do not file their 
submissions on or before such date in the office of the 
Registrar of the High Court of Sindh (for their placement on 
Const.P.18 of 2019. 
6
the case file of Constitution Petition No.D-444 of 2019), the 
learned High Court Bench that has heard the matter may 
forthwith proceed to announce its judgment at an early date. 
 
 
This petition stands disposed of in above terms.    
  
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Islamabad, 
26.09.2019. 
Irshad Hussain /* 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.