PESHAWAR, Dec 5: A division bench of the Peshawar High Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a writ petition challenging an order of the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan.

The case, involving scions of two influential political families of the provincial capital — Usman Alam Jhagra and Arbab Aamir — has been pending before the high court after the fourth phase of local government elections was held on July 2.

The petition was filed by Arbab Aamir, brother of a former MNA Arbab Zahir (of ANP), challenging an order of the Chief Election Commissioner through which he had declared Usman Jhagra, nephew of PML’s secretary general Iqbal Zafar Jhagra, Nazim of the Mera Kachori union council.

The bench comprising Justice Khalida Rachied and Justice Qaim Jan Khan reserved its order after completion of arguments by Advocate Qazi Muhammad Anwer appearing for the petitioner and Barrister Jehanzeb Raheem representing the respondent, Usman Alam.

Advocate Qazi Muhammad Anwer argued that initially the returning officer declared Mr Jhagra as returned candidate with a margin of 9 votes. However, he added, on the application of the petitioner, recounting took place during which Mr Aamir was declared successful by excluding nearly 300 votes of a polling station which did not carry signatures of the presiding officer.

Mr Anwer argued that the respondent, Mr Jhagra, approached the Chief Election Commissioner who on July 17 set aside the order of returning officer and again declared Mr Jhagra as nazim of union council Mera Kachori.

The counsel contended that under section 71 of the NWFP Local Government Election Rules an election dispute could only be challenged in an election petition before an election tribunal and the CEC was not empowered to entertain an election dispute once the results were consolidated by the district returning officer and returning officer.

He referred to Form XVI of elections, stating that the name of Mr Aamir was included in that form following which entertaining the application of Mr Jhagra was overstepping of jurisdiction by the CEC.

Barrister Jehanzeb Raheem argued that although the ballot papers did not carry signatures of the presiding officer, the stamp of the officer was present on all the papers.

He argued that the same was the case of all the ballot papers utilised for all five categories of votes — Nazim/Naib Nazim, general seats, reserved seats for women, workers peasants and female workers and peasants. The counsel contended that if votes cast for Nazim/Naib Nazim had to be rejected then why the same kind of ballot papers were accepted for other categories.

About the powers of the Chief Election Commissioner, he argued that the commissioner enjoyed enormous powers under the election law. He relied on Order 8 of 2000 issued by the Chief Executive through which powers of conducting local bodies elections were delegated to the CEC, stating that under the said order the CEC enjoyed all the powers which he enjoyed under other laws.

He argued that completion of elections took place when final notification of successful candidates was issued by the Election Commission and till such time an election dispute could not be challenged before an election tribunal.