Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 624 of 1958, decided on 28th July 1958 under Article 170 of the Constitution.

S. 26 (4)‑-Government can continue to operation old electoral Roll for more than one year.

Electoral roll for the Cantonment Board of Rawalpindi was prepared in 1955 No new electoral roll was prepared for the years 1956 and 1957, and Government, exercising their power under subsection (4) of section 26, Cantonments Act (II of 1924) directed the electoral roll of 1955 to continue to be in operation in each of the years 1956, 1957. Election to the Board was to be held in 1958, and the Government again in exercise of the same powers directed the same roll to continue to be in operation in the year 1958.

Held, that no limitations, which did not appear in the Act itself could be placed on Government's power to continue in operation the old electoral roll for more than one year. This followed from a reading of section 15 (1) proviso of the Canton ments Act which empowered Government to postpone the elections themselves for an indefinite period.

S. 15 (1) proviso‑Satisfac tion of Government not justiciable unless mala fides.

The satisfaction of the Central Government is obviously final, and, except perhaps where mala fide is alleged, is not a justici able matter.

---

--‑Political concepts not to affect interpretation of legislative enactments except in so far as they appear from enactment itself.

Political concepts, to wit, principles of "progressive democ racy" or the "Right of franchise" cannot be referred to by Courts in interpreting legislative enactments except in so far as they appear from the enactments themselves.

Abid Hasan Minto for Petitioner.

M. B. Zaman for Respondents 2 and 3.

Date of hearing: 28th July 1958.

‑In order to appreciate the facts of this case, it is necessary to refer at the very outset to the provisions of section 26 of the Cantonments Act (II of 1924). This section runs as follows :‑

"26.‑(1) The Board or, where a Board is not constituted in any place declared by notification under subsection (1) of section 3 to be a cantonment, the officer Commanding the station, shall prepare and publish an electoral roll showing the names of persons qualified to vote at elections to the Board. Such roll shall be prepared, revised and finally published in such manner and on such date in each year as the Central Government may by rule prescribe.

(2) Every person whose name appears in the final electoral roll shall, so long as the roll remains in force, be entitled to vote at an election to the Board, and no other person shall be so entitled.

(3), When a. Cantonment has been divided into wards, or the inhabitants into classes, the electoral roll shall be divided into separate lists for each ward or' class, as the case may be.

(4) If a new electoral roll is not published in any year on the date prescribed, the Central Government may direct that the old electoral roll shall continue in operation until the new roll is published."

Admittedly the electoral roll for the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, was prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section, and the relevant rules framed there-under, in 1955 before the ordinary elections to that Board in that year. The next ordinary elections are to be held next month. In 1956 and 1957 no fresh electoral roll was prepared as required by the first subsection of section 26, because the Central Government in exercise of its powers under the fourth subsection directed the electoral roll of the previous year to continue in operation. No fresh electoral roll has been prepared for the forthcoming election as yet and the Central Government have again exercised their power under the fourth subsection. The present petition prays :‑‑‑

"That an appropriate writ or order directing respondents to prepare the electoral roll for the year 1958 and allow the petitioner and other residents of Cantonment area to put in their claims and objections under the rules. It is also prayed that an appropriate writ or order directing respondents to postpone the elections to the Board, till the electoral roil is duly prepared and published, be duly issued with costs."

I have listened to an interesting set of arguments in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the power under the fourth subsection cannot be used by the Government for more than one year in succession. In support of his argument he referred to "the principles of Progressive Democracy" and "the Right of Franchise". These cannot be referred to by courts in interpreting legislative enactments except in so far as they appear from the enactments themselves; and there is not even a remote indication of these in this Act. There is no inherent or fundamental right in the residents of the Cantonment area to have a Cantonment Board. They have it only because the Legislature has, through this Act, chosen to give it to them; and they can have it only in accordance with the provisions of that Act and not otherwise. The "Right of Franchise" has been conferred only upon‑ the persons whose names appear in the electoral roll, and not upon the residents of the area generally, or even upon those who may be qualified to have their names placed on the roll.

The whole scheme of the Act appears to be that the Central Government is the final arbiter and authority in all matters relating to the constitution of the Cantonment Board and the elections thereto. Subsection (1) of section 15, after providing that the term of the office of a member of a Board shall be three years, adds the following significant proviso :‑

"Provided that the Central Government may, when satisfied that it is necessary in order to avoid administrative difficulty, extend or reduce the term of office of all the elected members of a Board by such period as it thinks fit."

The satisfaction of the Central Government is obviously final, and except perhaps where mala fide is alleged, is not a justiciable matter. It is noteworthy that the words "not exceeding one year") appearing after the words "such period" in the proviso was subsequently omitted by the Amendment Ordinance No. IV of 1949. Can it, therefore, be reasonably urged that when the Government have the power to postpone the elections themselves for an indefinite, period, limitations, not appearing in the Act itself, could be placed on their power to continue in operation the old electoral roll for more than one year

There is nothing in the Act to indicate any limitation on the powers conferred on the Central Government by the fourth subsection of section 26. In fact all the gatherable indications point to the contrary conclusion. Unlike section 15, this subsection does not require that before exercising the power there under the Government should be "satisfied that it is necessary in order to avoid administrative difficulty'. The power is simpliciter and is unfettered by any condition precedent pr qualification. Again, subsection (2) gives the right of vote to the person whose name appears in the electoral roll "so long as the roll remains in force", and not in the electoral roll either of that year or of the preceding year or of more than two years old.

It remains to add that there is no question of any mala fides in this case. Admittedly it was decided to extend the Cantonment area last year and this decision necessitated a reconstitution of the wards. This could not be done because a number of writ petitions were filed in this Court against the Government's order extending the area. These are still pending and have not been decided. The Government decided that as the addition of more and the consequent reconstitution of the wards would necessitate the preparation of a completely fresh electoral roll, it would be neither convenient nor proper to enter upon the task of an electoral roll for 1958 until the disposal of the writ petitions.

For the reasons sated above, this petition is dismissed with costs.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.