Find a Lawyer

Electoral Rolle Act (XXI of 1974)‑‑

‑‑‑8. 11‑‑Right of citizens of Pakistan to be registered as voters, a valuable right granted under Constitution as well as under the Act‑‑

Persons originally residents of M and entered as voters in voters list at M, subsequently leaving that place and residing as permanent residents at S have a right to be registered as voters at their new place of residence and on their request that their names be struck off from electoral roll pertaining to place M‑‑Revising Authority not justified in circumstance to refuse registration of persons as voters at place of their new residence at S.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and M.A. Zafar for Petitioner. Muhammad Afzal Khan Niazi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1987.

The petitioner Darshan Masih has moved Writ Petition No.1257 of 1987 against the respondents praying therein that the impugned order dated 27‑11‑1986 passed by respondent No.l may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Similarly the other connected Writ Petitions No.1258 of 1987,1259 of 1987, 1260 of 1987, 1261 of 1987, 1262 of 1987, 1263 of 1987, 1264 of 1987, 1265 of 1987, 1266 of 1987, 1267 of 1987, 1268 of 1987, 1269 of 1987 and 1270 of 1987 have been filed by the other petitioners. These petitioner are being disposed of by one order as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these connected matters.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that the petitioners are the non‑Muslims and initially they were residents of Mianwali city in a Katri from which they were ejected. They started living in Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6, Tehsil and District Mianwali. The names of the petitioners are duly entered as voters in the voters' list pertaining to Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6, Respondent No.2, Aman Ullah Khan, submitted an objection petition before respondent No.l Revising Authority, saying that the petitioners cannot be registered as voters in their new place of residence. Respondent No.l vide his order dated 27‑11‑1986 summarily without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, ordered their names to be struck off from the electoral roll pertaining to Electoral Unit of Halqa Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6 relying upon an incorrect report. Respondent No.l proceeded to accept the objection petition filed by respondent No.2 vide his short order dated 27‑11‑1986. The impugned order is reproduced below:‑

"Heard. Report seen. Accepted."

As stated earlier, the petitioners are aggrieved of this order and have come up in writ jurisdiction.

3. Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended vehemently that the petitioners were ejected from Mianwali city and that they have left Mianwali city for ever to live in Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6. It is next contended that the petitioners have not at all been heard and they have been condemned unheard. Learned counsel maintained that the petitioners had a vested right to be registered as voters being the citizens of Pakistan. Learned counsel submitted that it was necessary for the Revising Authority to have held a summary inquiry on the objection petition filed by respondent No.2. It is submitted that no inquiry whatsoever was held by the learned Revising Authority. There was ample evidence produced by the petitioners before the Revising Authority to show that they are not the residents of Mianwali city inasmuch as after their eviction from their residences, they have shifted to Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6, as stated earlier. To that effect the petitioners have submitted affidavits that at the moment they are not at all residing in Mianwali city, but they are residing at Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6. Even today the petitioners have made statements submitting that once upon a time they had been living in Mianwali city but after their ejectment from the premises in their possession, they have come to reside permanently in Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6. It is submitted by learned counsel relying on section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, that this was the right of the petitioners to apply for transfer of their names from one electoral roll pertaining to one particular area to the electoral roll of another area. In these cases the petitioners submit that they have left Mianwali city for ever and that they have got no objection if their names are struck off from the electoral roll pertaining to Mianwali city. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is strong apprehension available in the case that the petitioners will use their votes at two places. He submitted that the statements of the petitioners be recorded that they will use their right of franchise at the new place of their residence. Precisely for this reason, the statements of the petitioners have been recorded in Court today.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the whole record of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by respondent No.l dated 27‑11‑1986 is not the speaking order inasmuch as no reasons whatsoever have been given by the said respondent. The mandate of law was that if the Revising Authority had come to a conclusion that the objection petition be accepted, then he was required to record reasons. The learned Revising Authority has failed to give any reasons whatsoever. The case of the petitioners before him was that they are not the residents of Mianwali city and that they had left that city to reside in Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6 for which they have submitted their affidavits showing that they are living there and that they also submitted their forms so that they may be registered as voters in that area. Their request was accepted and they were registered as voters in the preliminary electoral roll. The petitioners being the citizens of Pakistan, have vested right for be registered as voters at one place. Since the petitioners are the permanent residents of Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6, as such, they have the legal right to be registered as voters there. This is a valuable right guaranteed to the petitioners under the Constitution as well as under the provisions of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. They cannot be deprived of this right of franchisement. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that he apprehends that the petitioners will use their right of vote at two places cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioners have made statements before this Court saying that firstly they are not the voters in the electoral roll pertaining to Mianwali city and if at all their names are mentioned in the electoral roll pertaining to Mianwali city, they have got no objection if their names are struck off from that electoral roll.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners are the voters at one place, namely, Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6. I, therefore; proceed to set aside the impugned order dated 27‑11‑1986 passed by respondent No.l by declaring the same without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

The result is that these connected writ petitions are accepted. The petitioners shall be registered as voters in the electoral roll pertaining to Shahbaz Khel Pucca 3/6, Tehsil and District Mianwali. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

K.B.A./D‑12/L Petition accepte

Find a Lawyer Near You

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