1989SCMR99 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in an election matter (relating to correction of an entry in the Electoral Roll) against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court Learned counsel has advanced arguments in order to show that the impugned correction/transfer of vote was without lawful authority because it was not permissible in the circumstances of the case. Reliance has been placed on various provisions of law including Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974). It cannot be denied that the petitioners had invoked discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. That being so, it could not have been exercised either in aid of injustice or for the restoration of a wrong entry in the Electoral Roll. It is in this connection that the following observations and findings by the High Court are very relevant:‑‑‑ "It is not disputed that there was any error requiring correction in the electoral rolls of Ward No. 4/5 in which the name of the respondent No.2 was recorded at serial No.

77. No correction in the said entry was required. It is also not the case of the petitioners that Muhammad Javed Iqbal respondent No.2 through his application dated 1‑11‑1987 claimed for inclusion of his name or raised any objection for correction of the electoral rolls. As such we are of the view that the provisions of sections 10 and 12 were not applicable to facts of this case. The learned counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis on the word GHALTI in the application of respondent No. 2 for transfer of the vote. The word GHALTI ' cannot be interpreted to mean that he was seeking correction of any entry in the electoral rolls. In the context of the application the means inadvertence. In our view the application dated 1‑11‑1987 was simply an application for transfer of vote from one electoral unit to another electoral unit under section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act. The learned counsel conceded that an application for transfer under section 11 was competent and that there was no time limit for such an application. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine." We pointed out to the learned counsel that there was an error which needed to be corrected and that it was admitted before the High Court besides other admissions noted in the aforenoted part of the impugned judgment, the learned counsel first tried to dispute in an indirect way the correctness of the statement of fact recorded in the judgment. However, after some discussion, he took up the other position that his submissions in this behalf were not noticed in the same sense as he wanted to convey. After hearing the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter, we have not been able to agree with him. There was an error which needed to be corrected, the same (correction) having been made in case the leave is granted and ultimately appeal is 'allowed, an incorrect entry would have to be restored. This can neither be done in exercise of writ jurisdiction nor we would grant leave to appeal for that very reason. The same is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.I./M‑608/S Leave refused.