1997 PLP 1988 (CLC)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. ‑‑‑Petitioners names were recorded in Electoral Roll of Deh Kandrani with the address "Goth Nabi Dost" as back as in the year 1986‑87, but during the revision of Electoral Roll in 1996, they submitted forms for correction of their names showing their addresses as Goth Abdul Hakim and Goth Muhammad Yakub, instead of Goth Nabi Dost, because its owner i.e. respondent No.3 had shifted towards an area, three kilometre away from the residence of petitioner. Accordingly correction as prayed for by the petitioner was recorded whereas the names of voters of Goth Nabi Dost, which is after the name of respondent No.3 were also recorded separately. It appears that respondent No.3 on coming to know about the correction of addresses of petitioners in the Electoral Roll, which they have given of the villages, which are now being recognised after their names, preferred an application before the Revising Authority on 28th August, 1996. The application was contested but Revising Authority i.e. respondent No.l, accepted the request of respondent No.3, vide order, dated 22nd September, 1996. As such, instant petition has been filed. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for petitioner argued that Revising Authority had no jurisdiction under any provision of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, to direct correction in the Electoral Roll on the basis of addresses of voters. According to him as far as genuineness of the names of petitioners or their family members are concerned there was no dispute about it. But as now the petitioners have developed/built up their own village therefore, they have every right to give the addresses of their villages which are being recognised after their names. Mr. Abdullah Khan Kakar, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3, stated that address of petitioners of Goth Nabi Dost, which is after the name of respondent No.3, was existing since 1986‑87, therefore, they wrongly changed their addresses for getting them recognised independently as such, the Revising Authority was competent to correct the Electoral Roll, changing the addresses of petitioners. Section 7 of the Act of 1974, defines meaning of 'resident' as under:‑‑

"Meaning, of resident.‑‑ (1) Save as hereafter provided, a person shall be deemed to be resident in an electoral area if he ordinarily resides, or owns or is in possession of a dwelling house or other immovable property, in that area. (2) Where a person owns or possesses dwelling houses or other immovable property in more than one electoral area, he may, at this option, be enrolled in any one such area. (3) A person who is in the service of Pakistan or holds any public office shall be deemed to be resident in the electoral area where he is posted, unless he, applies in writing to the Registration Officer for enrolment in the electoral area in which he would have been enrolled if he had not been in such service or had not held such office. (4) The wife of any such person as is referred to in subsection (3) and such of his children as are entitled to lie enrolled shall, if they ordinarily reside with such person, be deemed to be residents in the electoral area in which such person is deemed to be resident under that subsection. (5) A person who is detained in prison or held in other custody at any place in Pakistan shall be deemed to be resident in the electoral area in which he would have been resident if he had not been so detained or held in such custody. "' Admittedly petitioners owe and are also in possession of dwelling houses and other immovable property independently and the area, where they are residing now is being recognised after their names, therefore, petitioners would be deemed to be ordinarily residing at that place, as such, they have every right to get incorporated the addresses of places where they are residing as presently respondent No.3 Nabi Dost himself is not residing in his own village and has shifted at a distance of three Kilometres from there, as it is evident from the contents' of para.3 of the petition, which has not been controverted by respondent himself by filing a counter‑affidavit. Therefore, in absence of any proof, no other conclusion can be drawn, except that petitioners rightly got recorded their actual addresses in the electoral roll where they are residing presently. In such view of the matter the Registration Office rightly exercising jurisdiction under section 15 of the Act of 1974, corrected the addresses of petitioners. As far as Revising Authority is concerned, it has no jurisdiction under any provision of the Act to change the actual addresses of petitioners in the electoral roll. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is allowed. Order passed by respondent No. 1, dated 22nd September, 1996 is declared without lawful authority. Consequently respondent No.2, is directed to restore the names of Goths of petitioners as it was existing prior to passing of impugned order by the Revising Authority. No order as to costs H.B.T./638/Q Petition allowed