MUZAFFAR ABAD: A division bench of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) High Court on Thursday fixed May 2 for the hearing of a writ petition challenging the AJK Council elections against four vacant seats.

The petition was filed by two PML-N lawmakers Barrister Iftikhar Gillani and Sardar Farooq Ahmed Tahir through their counsel Raja Mohammad Hanif.

On April 23, AJK Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mughal announced the schedule for elections against four vacant seats of the council, which is headed by the prime minister of Pakistan.

According to the schedule, nomination papers can be submitted on May 2 while polling will be held on May 15.

However, the petitioners maintained that the sitting AJK Legislative Assembly, whose five year term expires on July 24, did not have right to elect council members at the end of its tenure.

The petitioners contended that holding council elections at this point of time, when arrangements for general elections to the Legislative Assembly had almost been completed, was not mandatory, `because the council will remain in existence and its members will continue to hold office until their successors are elected by the incoming assembly` Contrarily, elections to the Legislative Assembly at a designated time were a constitutional requirement, which could not be overlooked for any reason, they added.

The petitioners further contended that the sitting assembly had already elected council members at the beginning of its term and therefore could not exercise the same right for the second time.

Instead this right should be left for the incoming assembly, they said.

The petitioners pleaded that holding council elections at this time would have a direct bearing on the transparency of the general elections, as it was bound to trigger `horse trading` amid reports that most lawmakers had put their votes on sale.

The bench, comprising Justice M Tabassum Aftab Alvi and Justice Sadagat Hussain Raja, observed that since important law points had been agitated in the petition, it would take any decision on it, including granting a stay order, only af ter ascertaining a written reply from the CEC, who is also the High Court chief justice.