YAHYA AFRIDI, J.- Muhammad Irshad, petitioner herein, seeks to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying that:- "On acceptance of this writ petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to; A. Declare and hold that the union councils numbering 14 (Lahori)and 15 (Karimpura) and block code No.037100205 was wrongly placed in Union Council No.15 (Karimpura) which is actually the part of Union Council No.14 (Lahori) as per delimitation proceedings and similarly block code No.0371--204 was wrongly placed in Union Council No.14 (Lahore) which is actually the part of Union Council 15 (Karimpura). AND B. Direct the respondents to make the necessary corrections regarding the impugned matter as stated above before the conduct of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Bodies Elections, 2015 in which the petitioner is a validly nominated candidate. AND/OR C. Grant any other relief considered just and appropriate in the given circumstances of the case but not specifically prayed herein."
2. In essence, the grievance of the petitioner is that the delimitation of Union Council 14 (Lahori) and Union Council 15 (Karimpura) as provided under Form-F has not been properly reflected in the final voters list of the said councils.
3. When asked to explain as to how this Court can make at this stage alteration in Form-F of the final voters list duly finalized by the District Delimitation Officer, respondent No.5 herein and notified by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government in their Official Gazette Extraordinary with effect from 10- 03-2014, the worthy counsel for the petitioner contended that he does not seek to alter the aforesaid list, but seeks to make assurance that the voters of the area should be allowed to vote in their respective Union Councils.
4. Upon notice by this Court, the representative of the Election Commission of Pakistan appeared in person and stated at the bar that as far as the delimitation of area comprising the above mentioned Union Councils is concerned, the same, being proper and appropriate for delimitation, has been acted upon for the purpose of Local Bodies Elections. When confronted to explain about the voters' area mentioned in the final delimitation list, he contended that the same could not be altered at this stage under Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 ("Act").
5. When asked as to whether the petitioner has ever approached the respondents-Commission in writing, the worthy counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner did approach the respondents for the redressal of his grievance, but he is not in possession of any material. In this connection, the representative of the respondents-Commission further made a statement at the bar that the respondents-commission had not received any application from the petitioner; and that the petitioner is contesting election for Member District Council from Union Council 14 (Lahori), where he has been enrolled as a voter with Block Code No.037100205 in District Peshawar since 2012 till now.
6. In addition to above statement, the respondents brought the attention of this Court to the wide publicity made by the respondents 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 4.4.2015 ("Schedule").
7. 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".
8. The barring provision contained in section 20 of the Act, expressly refers to revision of the rolls, as provided 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.
9. 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 of 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.
10. In the present case, it is noted with concern that the petitioner remained indolent and did not agitate about his rights since 2012. 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 petitioners, at this belated stage, would be indirect conflict with the expressed command of section 20 of the Act.
11. 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 Court with all humility differs 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.
12. 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 of Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. No indulgence could be shown to petitioner in this behalf.
High Court dismissed constitutional petition in limine."
13. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.