IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
C.P.95/2023, C.P.112/2023, C.P.113/2023 AND C.P.204/2023 
 
1. 
C.P.95/2023 
Muhammad Shaharyar Khan Mahar v. Election 
Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary, 
Islamabad 
 
 
 
2. 
C.P.112/2023 
Muhammad 
Ibrahim 
Jatoi 
v. 
Election 
Commission of Pakistan ECP, Islamabad and 
others 
 
 
 
3. 
C.P.113/2023 
Muhammad 
Ibrahim 
Jatoi 
v. 
Election 
Commission of Pakistan ECP, Islamabad and 
others 
 
 
 
4. 
C.P.204/2023 
Imtiaz Ahmed Sheikh and others v. Election 
Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary, 
Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. Hussain Ali Almani, ASC video link 
from Karachi 
Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, ASC video link 
from Karachi 
Mr. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
 
  
ECP 
: Mr. Muhammad Arshad, DG ECP 
Mr. Falak Sher, Consultant 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 15.08.2023 
 
  
O R D E R 
 
 
 
The ECP has defended its impugned action on the 
basis of Rule 10(4) of the Election Rules, 2017 (“Rules”). By that 
provision, the limits of a Tapedar Circle should not be breached in 
the delimitation process. In the present case, the contention of the 
petitioner is that the delimitation in 2018 election without violating 
Tapedar Circle was closer to the limits now being demanded by the 
petitioner. In the present case, the plea being taken by the 
petitioners is that the difference in the number of voters in each of 
the three Provincial Constituencies in District Shikarpur is more 
C.P.95/2023 etc 
2
pronounced and exceeds the variation limits set by Section 20(3) of 
the Elections Act, 2017 (“Act”). On a challenge made by the 
petitioners on the above grounds, the ECP passed an order under 
Section 22(1) of the Act holding that the information furnished by 
the petitioner was time barred. Whereas there is no limitation 
prescribed for bringing information to the notice of the ECP under 
the said provision. Therefore, the ground taken in the order is 
invalid.  
 
2. 
 
Be that as it may, the ECP is given an opportunity to 
consider whether it would be willing to answer the petitioner’s 
objection through a fresh order or would like to contest the matter 
before us.  
 
3. 
 
Re-fix soon after the vacations. 
 
 
 
 
 
Sd/- 
Chief Justice   
 
 
 
Sd/- 
Judge 
Islamabad 
15.08.2023 
Rashid/*  
 
Not approved for reporting  
