2016 PLP 1881 (MLD)

QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.

Since identical questions of entering names of the petitioners in the Electoral Roll in a Union Council other than the existing one are involved, this single order shall dispose of all the three below mentioned writ petitions. a) In the instant writ petition, Yousaf Ali, petitioner, is seeking his registration in Union Council Chaknoda-I, Tehsil Razar District Swabi instead of Union Council Gulo Dheri where his name is appearing since General Elections, 2013. b) In WP. No. 1248-P/2015 petitioner, Khurshid, has prayed for inclusion of his name in the voting list of Union Council 18 Jehangir Pura, Peshawar, by transferring and removing his name from the Electoral List of Union Council 16 Andron Shair, Peshawar. c) In WP. No. 196-P/2015, Sehrish Munawar, petitioner, has sought the relief of a direction to the respondents i.e. Election Authorities to include her name in the Voting List of Union Council 14, Lahori Gate, Peshawar, by transferring and removing her from the Electoral List of Union Council 37 Sheikh Abad, Peshawar.

2. It is, indeed, noteworthy that in all the three aforementioned writ petitions, the petitioners have based their claim for transfer of their names from Electoral Roll of one Union Council to another Union Council on the common ground that the petitioners and all their family members are permanent residents of the other Union Council and that names of rest of the family members are already registered in the said Union Council; but he/she has been declined transfer from the existing Electoral Roll to the Electoral Roll of another Union Council on the ground that Election Schedule has already been notified on 04.04.2015. In other words, notwithstanding affidavit of the Election Authorities to the effect that the petitioners had never applied for transfer of his/her vote prior to announcement of the Election Schedule on 04.04.2015, the petitioners have themselves admitted in their writ petitions that their names were included in the existing Electoral Rolls and they applied for transfer of their names only after announcement of Election Schedule.

3. In such a situation, Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') specifically bars revision or correction of an Electoral Roll in the following words: "

20. No correction to be made after constituency called upon to elect. -- No revision or correction of any electoral roll for any 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."

4. It may also be added here that this Court has consistently followed the view of the honourable Balochistan High Court in Haider Ali Khan Jamali's case (2014 CLC 1381), whereby Section 20 of the Act has been discussed as follows: "Electoral rolls prepared in year 2002 for general elections could not be used in coming Local Government elections, for which electoral rolls already prepared in year 2000-01 for Local Government elections held in May, 2001 would be used. Petitioner had not bothered to check his name in electoral rolls prepared in year 2000-01 when Election Commission of Pakistan had invited claims, objections and application for its correction within specified period. Election Schedule for coming Local Government elections had been announced. Thus, correction of subsequent list by including petitioner's name would be barred under section 20 of Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. No indulgence could be shown to petitioner in this behalf. High Court dismissed constitutional petition in limine."

5. However, Mr. Abdul Rauf Rohaila, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 1248-P/2015, raised two fresh grounds, namely, transfer of name from one Electoral Area to another under section 11 of the Act and non-verification of the draft Electoral Roll to the extent of at least 10% by a house to house visit before publication of the Electoral Roll under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 5 of the Electoral Rolls, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules').

6. Apart from statement at bar of the Election Authorities affirming compliance with the relevant provisions of the rules before publication of the Electoral Roll, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of Section 11 of the Act does not appear in conformity with scheme of the Act, envisaging two stages: I) The first stage of preparation and computerization of Electoral Rolls, starting from Section 4 of the Act, culminates with final publication of the Electoral Rolls under section 16 of the Act; II) The starting point for the second stage of annual revision of Electoral Rolls is laid down in Section 17 of the Act ending in Section 20 of the Act, giving finality to the Electoral Roll 'after the Constituency which such Electoral Area forms part has been called upon to elect its representative'.

7. There is clear line of distinction between the two stages of preparation of the Electoral Rolls and their annual revision, as would vividly appear from the above referred relevant Sections of law, the former process completing with final publication of Electoral Rolls under section 16 of the Act and the latter commencing from provision with regard to annual revision of Electoral Roll under section 17 of the Act. Obviously, Section 11 of the Act, falling in the first stage of preparation of the Electoral Roll, would have no relevancy and cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of second stage of annual revision of the Electoral Roll.

8. In any case, having missed the opportunity at the relevant time, the petitioners cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to thwart scheme of the law clearly defined in the Act. The writ petitions, as such, having no substance, are dismissed, accordingly. RR/274/P Petition dismissed.