KARACHI, May 20: A division bench of the Sindh High Court on Monday restrained the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) from issuing the notification of the results of victorious candidates for the PS-85 Thatta seat.

The bench headed by Justice Maqbool Baqar was hearing a constitutional petition filed by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) candidate for the seat, Sassui Palijo, who lost the election to Syed Ameer Haider Shah Sheerazi.

The court also issued notices to the ECP, district returning officer and returning officers of PS-85, as well as the rival candidate, Mr Shirazi, and put off the hearing to May 24.

The petitioner submitted in court that election laws were violated during the counting of votes in her constituency. She stated that her votes were intentionally reduced although they were counted properly.

Ms Palijo further stated that the presiding officer did not provide her polling agents with a certified copy of the counted votes cast at 121 polling stations.

She alleged that the results of the constituency were doctored at the behest of her rival candidate.

The petitioner stated that her rival had defeated her with a margin of 826 votes and the margin reduced to 408 votes in the recounting. She claimed that the votes of various polling station were still missing and she could emerge victorious if proper recounting of the votes was done.

She prayed to the court to restrain the ECP from issuing the official notification and direct it to initiate proper proceedings in this respect.

Delimitation case

The same bench directed the ECP to seal the record of delimitation of two National Assembly and five provincial assembly constituencies in Naushahro Feroze and place it before the court.

The bench was seized with the petition of Mureed Ali Shah, who submitted in court that the ECP did not notify the delimitation of the constituencies following the relevant SHC orders although the ECP had submitted proposals in this regard.

He said that a committee heard the public and representatives of political parties but did not consider his objections to the ECP proposals.

The petitioner prayed the court to order the sealing of the record as he apprehended that the record pertaining to delimitation including the public opinion might have been tampered with.

The bench directed the ECP to seal the record and produce it in the court on the next hearing the date of which would be announced by the court’s office later.