1983 PLP 618 (CLC)

(a) Directing the Respondent No. 2 to reject the nomination paper of Respondent No. 1. (b) Directing the Respondent No. 2 to approve the nomination of petitioner. (c) Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the nominations were called for the election of the Reserved Seat of Women in the Union Council, Mirwah Gorchani, Taluka Mirpurkhas on 21‑2‑1981. The petitioner and Respondent No. 1 filed nomination papers. The peti tioner's nomination paper was rejected on the ground that she was not quali fied being a nominee. However, Respondent No. 1's nomination was accepted and since there was no other candidate, she was declared as elected on 21‑2‑1981. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above declaration filed an election petition. The above election petition has been dismissed by an order dated 23‑2‑1981 on the ground that the petitioner's nomination was rightly rejected. It was held that nominated members fall within clause (c) of section 14 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance and, therefore, they had no right to vote. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition. The above petition was only admitted on the. ground to examine whether the description of Respondent No. 1 in the Electoral Roll "ill‑‑‑~" was sufficient to identify her as to entitle her to file the above nomination. In the admitting order it was clearly observed that the rejection of the petitioner s nomination paper was legal.

2. Mr. Sher Ali learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the above petition, has urged that since Respondent No. 1's name is not on the Electoral Roll, she could not have filed the nomination paper, particularly in view of the fact that Abdul Shakoor had five more daughters. On the other hand it has been urged by Mr. Shakir Naqashbandi that this plea was not pressed before the Election Tribunal by the petitioner and that in any case the description given in the Electoral Roll was sufficient to identify Respondent No. 1 as she was the only unmarried daughter living with her father at the address given.

3. Before taking up the above contention it may be observed that the petitioner has also assailed the acceptance of Respondent No. 1's nomination paper on the ground that she was under age. However, Mr. Sher Ali learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the same as Respondent No. 1 has produced sufficient material alongwith her counter affidavit to indicate that she was of the age of more than 21 years at the relevant time.

4. Reverting to Mr. Sher Ali's contention that Respondent No. 1's name is not mentioned in the Electoral Roll, it may be observed that he has referred to Serial No. 57 of the photostat copy of the Electoral Roll, which contains the following entry :‑ It is true that the above entry does not contain the name of Respondent) No. 1, but the description given is that the voter was the daughter of Abdull Shakoor. It may be observed that on the same page the names of the other women voters have been mentioned and their descriptions are given with reference to the names of their husbands or to their fathers. It may be pertinent to reproduce the above entries at the above page which read as under

5. It may also be pertinent to refer the sub‑para. of para. III of the peti tion which reads as follows :‑ "It may be mentioned that Abdul Shakoor has six daughters (1) is wife of Hafiz Taj Muhammad, <2) is wife of Muhammad Alam, (3) and (4) are married at Karachi, (5) is married at Multan and (6) is Satara Parween student born on 25‑11‑1961 and as such less than 241 years today. Thus, Respondent No. 1 Mst. Satara Parween who is the only other candidate is not legally and factually mentioned on the Electoral Rolls." It may be noticed that according to the averment made in the petition only Respondent No. 1 is not married whereas the other daughters of Abdul Shakoor, according to the petitioner's own admission, are married. It may he stared that, according to the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, Abdul Shakoor has 7 daughters and not 6 as mentioned in the petition and 6 of the daughters are married and are living with their husbands whereas Respondent No. 1 being unmarried is putting up with her father. Respondent No. 1 has also filed a photostat copy of the previous Electoral Roll, which indicates that her name was mentioned' on the Electoral Roll. In view of the fact that Abdul Shakoor has only one unmarried daughter putting up with him, the description given in the Electoral Roll quoted hereinabove is sufficient to identify Respondent No.

1. If we were to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that event all the women voters whose names have not been mentioned in the Electoral Roll but they have been described with reference to the names of their husbands or fathers, would be deprived of their votes. The above construction will be harsh and improper.

6. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the above petition, hence it is dismissed with no order as to costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.