SC halts re-polling in NA-75 Daska on April 10


ISLAMABAD, March 25 (Online): Supreme Court (SC) has halted re-polling in NA-75 Daska on April 10.

The court maintained time is needed in giving decision in this case. The arguments of Suleman Akram Raja are underway and we have to hear other parties too in addition to Nosheen Iftikhar.

Suleman Akram Raja, counsel for Nosheen Iftikhar , PML-N candidate in NA-75 Daska took the plea in reply there are 76 polling stations in Daska city. Complaints were received from 34 out of 76 polling stations of Daska. Election Commission identified 34 polling stations. 20 presiding officers disappeared as well. Father of Nosheen Iftikhar has been elected from Daska city for five times. The influence of Nosheen Iftikhar family is enormous in Daska city. Nosheen Iftikhar had obtained 46000 votes while PTI candidate had obtained 11000 votes. Their aim was to disrupt the election in Daska city. Petition was filed in election commission against the result of polls.

He argued presiding officers went outside along with the police officers as per routine. Presiding officers return was extra ordinary. They returned together and looked afraid.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked “ this was told that polling remained suspended for much time at 10 polling stations. The question is this that who created the problems and why the problems were created on polling day. Was a candidate powerful therefore, these things were got done by the other.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial while addressing the counsel for Nosheen Iftikhar remarked were you happy over election results and you raised no objection over it. You will have to prove why the re-polling in the entire constituency is must on the complaint of 23 polling stations.

Justice Munib Akhtar remarked was the departure of presiding officers as per routine when they came out of polling stations.

The court while maintaining the election commission decision of re-polling in NA-75 Daska ordered to halt re-polling therein on April 10.

The hearing of the case was adjourned for indefinite period.