09 May 2004	Sunday	18 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425

KARACHI, May 8: The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Sindh High Court registrar on Friday in a petition by an additional district and sessions judge for leave to appeal an SHC division bench order for action against him.

A bench, comprising Justices Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, directed at the SC registry here that the petition be fixed before a three-member bench for hearing in due course.

Meanwhile, the impugned SHC order and a subsequent notice issued to ADSJ Imam Din Bhutto by the SHC registrar would remain suspended. Advocate K.B. Bhutto appeared for the petitioner and Dr Qazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, on court notice.

The SHC division bench, comprising Justices Sabihuddin Ahmed and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, passed severe strictures against Mr I.D. Bhutto, ADSJ, Kandiaro, Naushero Feroze, and recommended action against him while allowing a writ petition against an order passed by him as election tribunal for local government polls.

The tribunal had accepted a petition moved by Mohammad Ali Solangi and Umeed Ali Khanzada and declared them elected nazim and naib nazim of the Sita Road union council, Khairpur Nathan Shah in Dadu district, in place of Ali Mohammad Soomro and Abdul Latif, whose election was notified by the election authorities.

A recount was earlier ordered by a consent order following the petitioners' plea to drop the allegations of corruption and corrupt practices. The tribunal based its order on the recount and also held the notified nazim and naib nazim guilty of corrupt practices and, therefore, disqualified to hold their office.

Allowing the writ petition assailing the tribunal decision in February 2002, the SHC bench observed that the election petition should have been decided on the basis of recount once the petitioners themselves had agreed to withdraw the charges of corruption. At any cost, the alleged disqualification was not so notorious as to entitle the petitioners to be declared elected.

As for the recount, even if the disputed votes were counted in favour of the defeated candidates, the result could not materially affect the outcome of the polls, the bench observed.

In the concluding part of its detailed judgment, the SHC bench observed: "Before parting, we are constrained to observe that we would be failing in our duty if we do not record that the additional district judge performing the functions of election tribunal did not merely commit an error of law, but violated the essential norms of judicial conduct in recording such a perverseorder.

"The (tribunal's) order does not merely reflect culpable inefficiency and ignorance of law but prima facie appears to be tainted with ulterior motives. We would, therefore, recommend that appropriate action be initiated against him on the administrative side. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the registrar of this court."

The SHC registrar issued the ADSJ a notice in compliance with the order and the judicial officer challenged it in the Supreme Court. The SC stayed its operation pending hearing of the petition for leave to appeal.