Pakistan Case Law← Search
2022 PHC 202, 2022 MLD 1633

Saif-ul-Malook etc vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through, Chief

Citation2022 PHC 202, 2022 MLD 1633
CourtPeshawar High Court
Judge(s)Wiqar Ahmad, Kamran Hayat Miankhel
ResultPetition Dismissed

KAMRAN HAYAT MIANKHEL, J. Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner has sought the following relief:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petitio n respondents in particular , respondents No.2 to 4 may kindly be directed to include the names of petitio ners in the voter list Electoral roll area Kuza Banda, village council NO.21 Kuza Banda, Census Block Code 02220702 Tehsil and District Battagram from where the votes of petitioners had wrongly and without notice been transferred to other village councils. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioners."

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioners are the residents of village council No.21 Kuza Banda Census 020020702 Tehsil & Distri ct Battagram since long and their names were included in the voters lists for the year 2012 and 2018 in the above mentioned village council. However , the respondents, with malafide intention, without notice and consent of the petitioners, shifted the votes of petitioners from village Council No.21 to other village councils. The votes of petitioners No.1 and 2 are shifted to CB Code 020020801, while votes of petitioners No.3 to 7 are shifted to CB Code 020020802, whereas the votes of petitioners No.8 to 12 are shifted to CB Code 020020805 and the votes of petitioners 13 and 14 are shifted to CB Code 020020806. Petitioners No.8 and 11 applied for shifting of their votes to the respondents to village council No.2 1, while the other petitioners on having come to know about shifting of their votes, approached the respondents for the said purpose, but in vain.

Hence, this petition.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. No doubt, the petitioners are permanent residents of village Council No.21, having Census Block Code 02220702 and their names were included in the said voter list for the year, 2012 and 2018 and their names have wrongly been shifted to some other village council.

However , a complete mechanism has been provided for preparation of electoral rolls under the Elections Act, 2017.

Chapter-IV of the Act of 2017 deals with preparation of electoral rolls in an exhaustive manner . As this Court has already discussed the said mechanism in detail in its judgment passed in case titled 'Amanat Ali Khan Jadoon v.

Election Commission of Pakistan etc' (WP No.300-A/2022) decided on 09.03.2022 , therefore, in order to avoid prolongation, it will not be appropriate to also repeat the same here. Section 39 of the Act provides a time line in which the change in electoral rolls can be made. It will be advantageous to reproduce the said section as under: "39. No revision, correction or transfer after constituency called upon to elect.-- (1) No revision of or correction in an electoral roll of an electoral area or inclusion or transfer of a vote from the electoral roll of an electoral area to the electoral roll of anoth er electoral area shall be made nor shall any order under section 38 be made in respect of any electoral roll during the period beginning thirty days before the day on which the term of an Assembly or a local government is due to expire (hereinafter referred to as the cut-off date) till announcement of the results of the general election to the Assembly or the local government but it shall not apply to an election to fill a casual vacancy in an Assembly or a local Government."

The petitioners are under legal obligation to follow the statutory provisions provided for transfer or deletion of names from voter list of a particular village and inclusion thereof in the voter list of another village and that too, at the relevant stage and time. Admittedly , the petitioners have not followed the required procedure provided in Chapter-IV of the Act of 2017 and failed to apply to the Revising Authority or Registration Officer for this purpose at the relevant time. It transpires from the record that the petitioner has made no effort at the time when the electoral rolls were being prepared by the Revising Authority or Registration Officer and stood up at eleventh hour, after the announcement of election schedule. However , no revision, correction in an electoral roll of an electoral area or inclusion or transfer of a vote from the electoral roll of an electoral area to the electoral roll of another electoral area shall be made after constituency called upon to elect, as envisaged by Section 39 of the Act of 2017, referred to above.

5. So far as the question that the petitioners were not informed or served with a notice regarding the change of their electoral area, it is evident from record that Commission displayed provisional electoral roll list and also final electoral roll lists in a very elaborate manner and also ample time was given for the correction of electoral rolls but petitioners slept over their right and after the announcement of election schedule, they started the exercise to get transfer their names from an electoral roll of one area to another electoral roll area. It is trite law that one should be vigilant about their rights under the general law. Similarly , right to vote and franchi se is vested right, however , this right cannot be taken in isolation because every right has a corresponding obligation. The petitioners before invoking this right were required to have fulfilled their obligation of apply to the Revising Authority or Registration Officer at the relevant time under the provisions of the Act of 2017. In this context, reference may be made to judgment of Baluchistan High Court in the case of 'Yousaf Ali vs. Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commission and 4 others' (2016 MLD 1881 ), wherein, it has been held that: "Having missed the opportunity at the relevant time, the petitioners cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to thwart scheme of the law clearly defined in the Act."

6. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, this petition being devoid of substance is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search