1984 PLP 537 (SCMR)

S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑The judgment dated 23‑10‑1983, which is sought to be impugned through this petition, was passed by a Division Bench of the Sind High Court accepting a constitutional petition of the first respondent in the background of the following facts :‑ The petitioner and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) were both contestants for membership of the Clifton Cantonment Board from U. C. No. 101. The petitioner, at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers for the said constituency by the Returning Officer raised objection regarding the validity of the nomination paper of the respondent on the ground that his name also appeared at Serial No. 6196 of U. C. No. 100. The objection was accepted by the Returning Officer on 12‑10‑1983. and the appeal of the respondent against the said order was dismissed by the third respondent by his order dated 18‑10‑1983. The above two orders were challenged by the first respondent in the High Court of Sind through a constitution petition which was allowed as per impugned judgment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the name of the respondent appeared on the electoral rolls of more than one elec toral area the same amounted to disqualification as provided in section 25 of the Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974) read with clause (g) of section 15‑B of the Cantonments Act, 1924. Section 25 of the Electoral Rolls Act is as under :‑ "25. No person to be enrolled more than once or in more than one electoral area. No person shall be enrolled (a) on the electoral roll for any electoral area more than once ; or (b) on the electoral rolls for more than one electoral area." The above section bars the enrolment of a person more than once or in more than one electoral area only. The consequence of double enrolment has not been made a disqualification under this section or in the Act itself. Section 15‑B of the Cantonments Act, 1924 relates to qualifications and dis qualifications of members. While qualifications are provided in subsection (1) of the said section, the disqualifications are enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of subsection (2) thereof. According to the learned counsel for the peti tioner the case of the respondent was covered by the provision contained in clause (g) of subsection (2) of section 15‑B which is as under :‑ "(2) A person shall be disqualified for being elected as and for being a member of, a Board if he‑‑ (g) is for the time being disqualified for the membership of an elective body under any law for the time being in force." For the application of clause (g) above, the disqualification must be such as provided under any law for the time being in force, and double enrolment having not been specifically made a disqualification under the Electoral Rolls Act, the provision contained in the clause is not attracted. Besides, as found by the learned High Court, the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to consider any objection with regard to nomination of a candidate which related to his registration in the electoral roll in view of the bar contained in the proviso to rule 12 of the Cantonments (Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1979. No other contention was raised. The findings of the learned High Court based on the interpretation of the provisions of law referred to above are unexceptionable. The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly. M.Z.M. Petition dismissed.