Yahya Afridi, J.--Hashmat Ali, petitioner herein, seeks to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying that:-- "This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate,writ directions to the official respondents;
(a) To include the name of the petitioner in his hometown constituency, i,e, Union Council Manerai Bala-1 of NA-12, Swabi-1 and allow him to participate in the process of election.
(b) To direct the Respondent No, 1 to appropriate writ discretion to transfer his name from District Malir (Karachi) to his native town, i,e, Union Council Maneri Bala-1 of NA-12/Swabi-1.
(c) To direct Respondent No, 3 to further direct the Respondents No, 2 & 4 to include the name of the petitioner in the Union Council Maneri Bala-1 of NA-12, Swabi.
(d) Any other relief/s which has not been specifically prayed for but is more conducive in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. In essence, the grievance of the petitioner is that, despite having submitted his nomination papers alongwith the requisite documents for the seat of Kisan Councillor, Maneri Bala-1, Swabi, the request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he was registered in Constituency of NA-255 of Polling Station, The Best Academy Bhutto Nagar, District Malik, Karachi with Block Code # 415100503 at Serial No, 180.
3. We have considered the valuable arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record.
4. Upon issuance of notice by this Court, today the representative of the respondents-commission appeared in person and submitted his affidavit, which reads as under:-- "I, Fazal-ur-Rehman, District Election Commissioner, Swabi, do hereby solemnly declare on oath that petitioner is enrolled at S. No, 180, Block Code No, 415100503, Polling Station, The Best Academy Bhutto Nagar, District Mallir, Sindh since 2012 till now and that petitioner has not submitted any application to the deponent for transferring his vote till now. All this is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed from this Hon'ble Court."
5. In addition to the above quoted affidavit, the respondents took this 'Court to the wide publicity made by the respondents-commission through various national dailies, clearly specifying the dates and places, where the electoral rolls could be inspected and the objections regarding the same could be made. It was further brought into the notice of this Court that, after the requisite wide publication to the public about the time, place and manner of inspection and correction of the electoral rolls, the schedule for the local bodies election, 2015, was announced on 4.4.2 015 ("Schedule").
6. The most crucial issue for determination in the instant petition is that the present petitioner did not approach the respondents-commission before the date when the Schedule was announced. In this connection, Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 ("Act") which clearly providing bar reads as under: "20. No correction to be made after constituency called upon to elect.--No revision or correction of any electoral roll for an electoral area shall be made nor shall any order under Section 19 be made in respect of any electoral roll at any time after the constituency of which such electoral area forms part has been called upon to elect its representative and before such representative has been elected."
' The bare reading of the said provision bars any revision or correction or preparation of the "fresh electoral roll" for any area, after the "constituency has been called upon to elect".
7. The barring provision contained in Section 20 of the Act, expressly refers to revision of the rolls under Section 17; correction of the roll under Section 18; and the preparation of fresh rolls under Section 19 of the Act. Thus, the respondents are barred to allow any alteration in the electoral rolls after the "Constituency has been called upon to elect". This term refers to the announcement of the schedule of the elections. This is the crucial date, whereafter the respondents are expressly barred from making any alteration in the electoral rolls of the voters.
8. There is no cavil with the proposition that the right to vote and franchise is vested right of a person and may even be equated with a fundamental right of a person as enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"). This crucial right a person to vote cannot be taken in isolation; with every right is a corresponding obligation of the person. All are to be vigilant about their rights under the general law and the Constitution.
9. In the present case, it is noted with concern that the petitioner remained indolent and did not agitate about his rights since 2013. The respondents-commission, on the other hand, have taken all necessary steps to inform the public about the time, place and manner of bringing about changes in the electoral rolls in order to preserve and protect the vested rights of a person to vote. Thus, allowing the grievance of the petitioner, at this belated stage, would be indirect conflict with the express command of Section 20 of the Act.
10. With utmost respect to the findings rendered in Humayun Iftikhar Chishti's case (1999 CLC 79) and Arjumand Zaheer Afzal Khan's case (2001 CLC 1305), the findings rendered are contrary to the clear provision of Section 20 of the Act. This Co- irt very all humility defers with the same. However, the findings rendered in Ch. Abdul Razzaq's case, Mian Ghulam Nabi's case and Muhammad Shafi's case (supra) do not relate to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. In this regard, we are in complete consonance with the views rendered by the worthy Balochistan High Court in Haider Ali Khan Jamali's case (2014 CLC 1381), wherein the worthy Court has discussed Section 20 of the Act which reads as under:-- "Electoral rolls prepared in year 2002 for general elections could not be used, in coming Local Government elections, for which electoral rolls already prepared in year 2000-01 for Local Government elections held in May, 2001 would be used. Petitioner had not bothered to Check his name in electoral rolls prepared in year 2000-01 when Election Commission of Pakistan had invited claims, objections and application for its correction within specified period.
' Election Schedule for coming Local Government elections had been announced. Thus, correction of subsequent list by including petitioner's name would be barred under Section 20 Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. No indulgence could be shown to petitioner in this behalf. High Court dismissed constitutional petition in limine."
12. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition, being bereft of any merit, is here dismissed.
(R.A) .