LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has been asked to initiate contempt proceedings against the Punjab governor and the chief election commissioner (CEC) for not announcing the date for the general election in the province despite an order.

Munir Ahmad, a lawyer by profession, filed a contempt of court petition saying a single bench on Feb 10 directed the governor and the ECP to immediately announce a date for the general election to the Punjab Assembly. However, he says, the respondents failed to comply with the court directions as no date has been allocated for the elections.

The petitioner asks the court to initiate proceedings against the respondents for committing and aiding blatantly continuing contempt of court by consciously failing to adhere to as well as tocomply with the orders.

Justice Jawad Hassan of the LHC had ordered the ECP to immediately announce the date of elections to the Punjab Assembly after consultation with the governor, in his capacity as the constitutional head of the province, to ensure that polls were held not later than 90 days as per the mandate of the Constitution.

The judge allowed the petitions of PTI and Munir Ahmad seel(ing directions for the governor and ECP to immediately announce a date for general elections in the province, since the assembly had been dissolved.

He ruled that article 219(d) of the Constitution provides that the `ECP` is charged with the duty of `the holding of general elections to the National Assembly, provincial assemblies and the local governments.

REPLIES SOUGHT: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has sought replies from the Punjabombudsperson and the Lahore deputy commissioner on a petition challenging Section 7 of the Punjab Enforcement of Women Property Act 2021, which empowers the body to even take cognizance of a sub judice matter relating to a property of a woman.

Ms Shagufta and others who were in litigation with some relatives regarding the ownership of a property had filed the petition.

On behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Malik Awais Khalid submitted that there were civil suits between the parties (the petitioners and the respondents) pending before the civil courts regarding the ownership of the properties. He said one of the respondents filed a complaint before the office of the ombudsperson that passed an order againstthe petitioners.

The counsel argued that the summary proceedings before the office of ombudsperson were not maintainable. He said the impugned Section 7 of the Actwas ultra vires to the Constitution being in violation to Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair trial and due process.

He said a property dispute already pending before a court of law could not be decided by the ombudsperson. He stated that the ombudsperson`s proceedings were quasi judicial, therefore, could not override the judicial proceedings.

The counsel said the complaint was not maintainable before the ombudsperson and the impugned order was not sustainable under the law. He contended that it was a settled principle of law that any rule found to be unreasonable could be declared ultra vires and liable to be struck down because it was not only unreasonable but also repugnant to the enactment.

The court issued notices to the respondents for submission of replies by March 9 and suspended the proceedings before the ombudsperson.