1988 PLP 2244 (CLC)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑ Petitioner as also Muhammad Ansar Hayat respondent No.3 were candidates in the recent Local councils Elections from Ward No. 22 of Municipal Committee, Khushab. Respondent No.3 filed nomination papers stating therein that he was a voter in Ward No.22 and his vote was entered at serial No. 1110 of Electoral Roll ‑ of the said ward. Petitioner raised an objection in writing that respondent No.3 was not eligible to contest election from Ward No.22 as he was actually a registered voter of Ward No.21. Precise objection was that the name of the respondent No.3 appeared at serial No.1131 of Electoral Roll of Ward No. 21 but he manoeuvred to have his name included in the Electoral Roll of Ward No.22. It appears that respondent No.3 had moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner/ Registration Officer, Khushab stating therein that his vote was entered at Serial No. 1110 of Ward No.22 (old Ward No. 8) but his father's name was wrongly. mentioned as Samand Khan. The relevant entry was thus sought to be corrected as‑follows:‑ The correction prayed for was allowed by the Registration Officer on 31‑10‑1987 whereafter respondent No.3 filed the nomination papers as aforesaid. The objection raised by the petitioner was turned down by the Returning Officer who accepted the nomination papers of respondent No.3 vide order dated 12‑11‑1987 which is reproduced hereunder in extenso:‑ "Ghulam Haider candidate raised objection that Mr. M. Ansar Hayat's name has been entered in Ward Nos.21 and 22 as well. According to his version, he does not own property in Ward No.

22. The objection is not sustainable because a candidate can contest an election at one place. He should have challenged the entry of vote. Papers accepted."

2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the Punjab Local Council Election Authority but with no better result. The Election Authority vide order, dated 24‑11‑1987 declined to entertain the petitioner's application or the ground that the correction having been made by the Registration Officer, vote of respondent No.3 was also available in Electoral Unit No. 22 and that any order passed by the Registration Officer under the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 was not open to question before the Election Authority as 'Addition, cancellation and correction of Electoral Rolls is a function which is performed by the functionaries under the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974".

3. Petitioner has now invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to call in question the order of the Registration Officer, dated 31‑10‑1987 and that of the Returning Officer, dated 12‑11‑1987 accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.3.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the relevant record of the Registration Officer.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Muhammad Ansar Hayat respondent and all the members of his family, males and females, including his fattier, brothers, sisters, mother and grandmother were enrolled as voters in Ward No. 21 vide Annexures 'D' and 'D/1'. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.3 was never enrolled as a voter in Ward No. 22 but with a view to contest the election in that Ward, he sought to rely upon an entry at serial No. 1110 of Electoral Roll of the said ward which pertained to one Ansar Hayat son of Samand Khan and taking benefit of the similarity of name manoeuvred to have his name included in that Electoral Roll by alleging that the entry in question related to him but his father's name was wrongly recorded therein as Samand Khan instead of Sher Muhammad. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that the Registration Officer did not hold any enquiry as contemplated under section 18 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. Learned counsel pointed out that the particulars of Ansar Hayat given at Serial No. 1110 of the Electoral Rolls of Ward No. 22 did not tally with those mentioned at Serial No. 1131 of Electoral Roll of Ward No.21. According to the learned counsel, in the former entry. Ansar Hayat was shown 30 years old and a Zamindar by profession whereas in the entry at Serial No. 1131 of Ward No.22. Ansar Hayat was shown as a lawyer and aged 27 years. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 neither owned any property nor did he ever reside in Ward No. 22 and as such he was not eligible to be entered as a voter therein.

6. Stand taken on behalf of respondent No.3, on the other hand was that he was duly registered as a voter in Ward No. 22 (old Ward No.8) but his parentage was wrongly entered in the electoral roll which he got corrected from the Registration Officer. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 drew our attention to a Form (Annexure 'R/4) prepared for enrolment of voters under Rule 5 of the Electoral Rolls Rules, 1974 which, amongst others, included the name of Ansar Hayat son of Sher Muhammad, Zamindar, aged 30 years. Learned counsel submitted that the entries regarding profession and age were not material as the respondent was also a Zamindar. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the entry in question undoubtedly related to respondent No.3 as it was not even the case of the petitioner that there existed any other person by the name of Ansar Hayat son of Samand Khan in House No. 993, Mohallah Hussainabad, Ward No. 8 (present Ward No. 22). In the circumstances, it was not necessary for the Registration Officer to hold an enquiry. Learned counsel also pointed out that respondent No.3 has since contested and won the election in Ward No.22. For this reason also, petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief. in writ jurisdiction.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The real grievance of the‑ petitioner is directed against the order of the Registration Officer whereby the impugned correction in the name of the father of Ansar Hayat mentioned at serial No. 1110 of electoral roll of Ward No. 22 was made. We have not been impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner' that respondent No. 3 was never entered as a voter in Ward No. 22 and the entry at Serial No. 1110 of the Electoral Roll did not pertain to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to take a definite stand that there was, any other person by the name of Ansar Hayat son of Samand Khan living in Ward N0.22. That being so, in the absence of any other contender, the entry in the Form (Annexure 'rR/4'), prima facie, appears to support the respondent's contention that he was entered as a voter in Ward No.22 and the relevant entry at Serial No. 1110 of the Electoral Rolls related to him. It may be observed that in the voters Form, father's name of Ansar Hayat was admittedly shown as Sher Muhammad. The Registration Officer stated in his parawise comments that he made the necessary correction in the relevant entry after satisfying himself about the parentage of respondent No,

3. In the circumstances, the Registration Officer cannot be said to have committed any error or illegality in making the correction prayed for. Apart from this, question agitated by the petitioner being purely one of fact, it cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. It cannot be disputed that the Registration Officer had the jurisdiction to make the correction in the relevant entry relating to an applicant if he finds it erroneous or defective in any particular. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned order of the Registration Officer and the consequential order of the Returning Officer, dated 12‑11‑1987 accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.3, too, is not open to any exception. Uphsot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. N.B.T./G‑142/L Petition dismissed.