1988 PLP 533 (CLC)

The following points are for our consideration:‑ (1)Whether section 20 of Electoral Roll Act, 1974, is applicable for the preparation of Electoral Rolls Act, for the purpose of Cantonment Board Elections,. (2) Whether the Roll was got corrected after the constituency was called to elect its Representatives. (3) Whether this correction of name is such by which the respondent No.3, is disqualified from contesting the Election. Under section 15‑A of the Cantonment Act, 1924 the Electoral Rolls for the Election of the Board shall be prepared on the basis of the Electoral Rolls pertaining to that Cantonment prepared under section 4 of the Electoral Rolls, 1974. Therefore, it is very clear) that the responsibility of the Board is to prepare the Rolls for the purpose of the Election held under the Act on the basis of Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules by' which the Registration Officers are authorised to make any correction or additions and alterations in the Rolls prepared by them. Not only this, but there is no embargo to the Registration Officer not to register such votes. Under these circumstances it can conveniently be said that we may refer to the necessary provisions of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, and Rules there-under. Section 6 of the Act deals with preparation of preliminary Electoral Rolls containing the name of every person entitled to be enrolled as voter. The draft Rolls are published under section 8 by which objections are invited and under section 10, the Registration Officer or Revising Authority has to dispose of such objections within 21 days next to following the date of the publication of the preliminary Electoral Rolls under section

8. There is a provision under section 18 for revision of such Rolls annually and under section 18, any person whose name is not included in the Roll or any correction is to be sought, can apply to the Registration Officer. The section reads as under:‑ "

18. Enrolment and correction at a time other than the annual revision. (1) Any person whose name is not included in an electoral roll for the time being in force and who claims that he was or is entitled to be enrolled on that roll may apply to the appropriate Registration Officer, (alongwith a photostat copy of the identity card issued to him under the National Registration Act, 1973 (LVI of 1973), for the inclusion of his name therein, and if the Registration Officer is satisfied after giving such notice and making such inquiry as he may consider necessary that the applicant was or is entitled to have his name enrolled, he shall for the purpose of further correcting the roll insert the name of such person in that roll." But this action of the Registration Officer is subject to the restriction as provided under section 20 of the Act which reads as under:‑ "

20. No correction to be made after constituency called upon to elect. No revision or correction of any electoral roll or an electoral area shall be made nor shall any order under section 19 be made in respect of any Electoral Roll at any time after the constituency of which such electoral area forms part has been called upon to elect its representative and before such representative has been elected." From this provision of S. 20 of Electoral Rolls Act the intention is that after the announcement of the Election Programme, the Electoral Rolls shall not be changed in the interest of honest and fair elections. In the present case when it is specifically mentioned that Electoral Rolls are to be prepared in the light of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, therefore, we are of the view that section 20, is applicable for the preparation of Roll for the Election of the Cantonment Act, 1924. On this we may refer to a case of Khushnood Ahmad v. President, 1 Cantonment Board, Quetta Cantt., reported in P L D 1984 Quetta 171, where it has been held that provisions of sections 20 and 27 of the Act will apply. The relevant para is as under:‑ "The provision of sections 20 and 27 of the Act in my opinion apply to the present case of the petitioner. Section 20 provides that ...."No revision or correction of any electoral roll for an electoral area shall be made nor shall any order under section 19, be made in respect of any electoral roll at any time after the constituency of which such electoral area forms part has been called upon to elect its representative and before such representative has been elected " Section 27 enacts that subject to section 20, the Commissioner may, at any time, order:‑ (a) the inclusion in an electoral roll of the name of any person entitled to be enrolled on such electoral roll, and such name shall, from the date of such order, form part of the electoral roll; (b) the exclusion from an electoral roll of the name of any person who has died or has become disqualified to be a voter, and such name shall, from the date of such order, stand excluded from that roll, and (c) the removal of the name of any person from an electoral roll where such removal becomes necessary due to the repetition of the name in same electoral roll or in the electoral rolls of more than one electoral area." We may also refer to a case of Munir Ahmad v. The Returning Officer, Karachi and others, reported in P L D 1966 (W.P.) Kar. 1, and case of Rasheed Ahmad Rehmani v. Mirza Barkat Ali and others, reported in P L D 1968 S C

301. In these cases, the names were included after the notification was issued, calling upon the electoral units to elect a person. It was held that inclusion or exclusion of the names after the representatives have been called upon to elect the members, is illegal and without lawful authority. The relevant page 306(b) is as under:‑ "It will suffice to say that sub‑rule (3), has been correctly interpreted by the High Court in the above case. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the Returning Officer, acted illegally and without lawful authority in entering the name of Mirza Barkat Ali in the final Electoral Roll, on 3‑10‑1964, and as such the letter had not the necessary qualification to contest the election in question." In the above judgments sub‑rule (3) of Rule 22 of Electoral Rolls, 1964, was interpreted and those provisions are identical to the provisions of section 20 of the Electoral College Act, 1974. Section 20, has already been reproduced in the above paras of the judgment. We would like to reproduce sub‑rule (3) of Rule 22 of Electoral Rolls, 1964, which is as follows:‑ " Sub‑rule (3) of Rule 22: No application under sub‑rule (1) shall be entertained, and no amendment under sub‑rule (2) of any electoral roll upon any such application shall be made, at any time after the electoral unit to which the application relates has been called upon to elect its representatives and before a member of the Electoral College has been elected:‑ Provided that no election shall be postponed or the ground that any such application is pending disposal on the day an electoral unit is called upon to elect its representatives." On this, we may also like to refer to a case reported in 1986 S C M R

392. In this judgments, Their Lordships have reproduced some paras of the two judgments which we like to reproduce for the purpose that if any provision of the Act is made applicable then the provisions of the entire Act are also applicable to that law for the purpose of any action:‑ "The difficulties encountered in integrating and interpreting an interperting provision of law have been spelt out in Mayor and Co. of Portsmouth v. Smith (1885) 10 AC 364 at p. 371 in the following words:‑ "Where a single section of an Act of Parliament is introduced into another Act, I think it must be read in the sense which it bore in the original Act from which it is taken, and that consequently it is perfectly legitimate to refer to all the rest of that Act in order to ascertain what the section meant, though those other sections are not incorporated in the new Act. I do not mean that if there was in the original Act a section not incorporated, which came by way of a proviso or exception on that which is incorporated, that should be refererd to. But all others, including the interpretation clause., if there be one, may be referred to. It is a dangerous mode of draftsmanship to incorporate a section from a former Act; for unless the draftsman has a much clearer recollection of the whole of the former Act than can always be expected, there is great risk that something may be expressed which was not intended.' In another case Knill v. Towse (1889) 24 QSD 186 it was remarked that: ‑ 'Sometimes whole Acts of Parliament, sometimes groups of clauses of Acts of Parliament, entirely or partially, sometimes portions of clauses, are incorporated into later Acts, so that the interpreter has to keep under his eye, or, if he can, bear in his mind, large masses of bygone and not always consistent legislation in order to gather the meaning of recent legislation. There is very often the further provision that these earlier statutes are incorporated only so far as they are not inconsistent with the statutes with which they are incorporated; so that you have first to ascertain the meaning of a statute by reference to other statutes, and then to ascertain whether the earlier Acts qualify only, or absolutely contradict, the labour ones, a task sometimes of great difficulty, always of great labour ‑‑ a difficulty and labour, generally speaking, wholly unnecessary." The result of the above discussion is that the Registration Officer while allowing correction of electoral list of cantonment area could only exercise that power in accordance with the provision of Electoral College Act, 1974. With regard to the other point, the original record has been produced before according to which Respondent No.3, made an application for correction in the Electoral Roll on 29‑11‑1987, whereas the correction was allowed by the Registration Officer on 1‑12‑1987.. The first notification of the Election was issued by the President,' Cantonment Board, Clifton Cantonment, on 1‑12‑1987, between 11 a.m. and 3‑00 p. m. The correction in the Electoral Roll was made on 1‑12‑1987, and application admittedly was filed by the Respondent No.3, on 29‑11‑1987. The Registration Officer has explained that due to holiday on 30‑11‑1987, he could not pass such an order. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no violation of section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act and in these circumstances, it could not be‑ said that correction was made after the representatives were called upon to elect their members. Now, we revert to the third point with regard to the correction in the name from Tayyeba to Tuba. The identity of the Respondent No.3, has not been disputed. In the Electoral Roll, name is daughter of " " whereas according to correction her name is given as "Tuba Durrani daughter of Asif Ali. This according to us is only a clerical mistake or printing error which even under Rule 60 of the Cantonment Election Rules, the Returning Officer could have rectified and her nomination paper was not liable to be rejected. In this, we are fortified by a case of Shaikh Abdul Hameed v. President, Cantonment Board and others reported in 1986 S C M R

392. The relevant portion is given hereunder:‑ "The appellant claimed that his name 'Abdul Hamid' was misprinted as 'Abdul Majid' at 1583, that other particulars were his and that earlier he had got it formally corrected but the misprint had again crept in. All this on the factual plane was found to be correct. It is an obvious clerical or printing error and such a mistake could not be made the basis for disqualifying the appellant when he had done all that was required of him to get it corrected." For the reasons stated above, this Constitution Petition fails and the nomination paper of respondent No.3, has rightly been accepted. A . A . /S‑141/ K Petition dismissed.