1997 PLP 1810 (MLD)

(2) A person shall be entitled to vote if‑‑‑ (a) he is a citizen of Pakistan; (b) he is not less than twenty‑one years of age (c) his name appears‑on the electoral roll; and (d) he is not declared by a competent Court to be of unsound mind. " 106.‑‑‑(1) There shall be a Provincial Assembly for each Province consisting ‑of the number of members hereinafter specified to be elected by direct &free vote in accordance with law‑‑‑ Balochistan... 40 The North‑West Frontier Province 80 The: Punjab 240 The Sindh 100 (2) A person shall be entitled to vote if‑‑‑ (a) he is a citizen of Pakistan; (b) he is not less than twenty‑one years of age; (c) his name appears on the electoral roll for any area in the Province; and (d) he is not declared by a competent Court to be of unsound mind. "

7. The electoral rolls are prepared under section 6 of the Electoral Act, 1974. Under subsection (2) of this section, a person is entitled to be enrolled as a voter in an electoral area, inter alia, if he is resident of that electoral area. Under section 14 objections to the registration of voters' name, in the electoral roll of an electoral area have to be decided by the Revising Authority. The decision of the Revising Authority is considered to be final under the Act.

8. The afore‑quoted Constitutional and statutory provisions make it clear that the petitioner's name from the voters' list could not have been deleted altogether. His name was required to be retained at one place in the voters' list. When the petitioner moved an application to correct the error which crept into the electoral roll on account of omission of his name from voters' list altogether, then it was not a case of review. Indeed what he asked for was to secure his Constitutional and statutory right of franchise, that his name should be brought back on the, electoral roll, which had been removed from the same through clerical mistake.

9. In the instant case the unrebutted plea of the petitioner is that he is resident of Ward No.5, Town Committee Abdul Hakim. He also remained a member of the local council from that area previously. Therefore, in pursuance of the Constitutional and the statutory rights aforesaid it was absolutely essential that he should have been registered as a voter. Needless to say that there is no averment that the petitioner is in any way disqualified to be enlisted as a voter in Ward No.5. No doubt the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll could not have existed at two different places but he was entitled to be registered at one place in the electoral roll. The petitioner stands disfranchised by deletion of his name from the electoral roll altogether, seemingly by mistake. Rana ammad Arshad Khan respondent made two objections for deleting his name from Serial Nos.438 and

752. The Revising Authority accepted one objection while rejected the other, with the result that his name was allowed to remain at one place in the voters' list. This indeed was the correct decision. However, on an objection raised by Rana Muhammad Asif, his vote from Serial No.752 has also been deleted under the impression that it was the case of double entry. Obviously, the Revising Authority was oblivious of the fact that his vote at Serial No.438 had been allowed to remain intact.

10. The Revising Authority has refused to grant relief to the petitioner to correct the voters' list on the ground that after disposal of the objections the Revising Authority could not correct the electoral roll and as such the review application was not maintainable. As already indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, in the circumstances of the present case, it was not a case of review. The petitioner in fact had called for correcting clerical mistake which occurred on account of the acceptance of the subsequent objection of Rana Muhammad Asif. The objection of Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan with regard to entry of Vote No.438 was rejected because after deletion of vote registered at Serial No.752 it was no longer case of double vote entry. Therefore, when vote at Serial No.438 was deleted subsequently on the objection of Rana Muhammad Asif, it was evidently a clerical mistake, because then it was not a case of double vote entry. The Revising Authority in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical /inadvertent mistake could have recalled its order. Every Court and authority should liberally exercise inherent jurisdiction to correct patent errors of the nature in issue, with a view to secure valuable Constitutional and statutory rights of citizens. The relief in such cases should not be refused by taking hyper technical view.

11. For what has been discussed above, the order dated 22‑5‑1996, whereby the objection petition filed by Rana Muhammad Asif (respondent No.3) was accepted and the order dated 11‑7‑1996 passed by the Revising Authority are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is directed that the petitioner's name shall be brought back at serial No.438 of the electoral roll of Ward No.5 of Town Committee Abdul Hakim. Resultantly, the petition is accepted with no order as to costs. A.A./M‑231/L Petition accepted.