' SARDAR MUHAMMAD, J.-Ijaz Hussain petitioner had contested election from Ward No, 7 of Town Committee Pind Dadan Khan against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. He had polled 163 votes as against Haji Muhammad Hussain, who had obtained 140 votes. The second and third contestants had obtained 94 and 12 votes respectively. Haji Muhammad Hussain respondent No, 1 filed an election petition which was accepted by Civil Judge, Pind Dadan Khan/Election Tribunal, vide order dated 6th December, 1983. Learned Tribunal while setting aside the election of the petitioner directed for holding, the election, afresh.
2. The ground taken in the election petition was that the respondent, petitioner herein was not qualified to be a candidate to contest election from Ward No, 7 because his name did not appear validly in the electoral roll of electoral Unit No,
7. The plea taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on an application submitted by him on 31st July, 1983 for transfer of his vote from village Kulliwal to Ward No, 7 of Town Committee Pind Dadan Khan, the Registration Officer had directed the transfer of his vote to Ward No, 7 vide order dated 1st August, 1983 and that, for that reason, he was qualified for taking part in the election as a candidate from Ward No, 7.
3. Learned Tribunal in the light of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? 0. P. P.
(2) Relief.
' Learned Tribunal although accepted the fact of existence of the order of transfer of vote of the petitioner from viliage Kulliwal to Ward No, 7 vide order, dated 1st August, 1983, but came to the conclusion that the order of transfer of his vote to Ward No, 7 was without lawful authority and void ab initio, after taking into account the facts, that he did not own any immovable property in Ward No, 7 ; that he had neither any permanent nor temporary residence in Ward No, 7 ; that even his son who had appeared as a witness, had admitted that his vote was registered at village Kulliwal and had cast his vote there ; that the respondent, petitioner herein himself admitted while appearing as a witness that on some of the documents, his address still was of village Kulliwal ; that the identity card bears the address of village Kulliwal and that his family including wife and son, was residing in village Kulliwal. On the basis of this conclusion, learned Tribunal held that the petitioner lacked qualification laid down in section 20 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, for contesting election from Ward No,
7. Reliance in this regard was placed on PLD 1981 Lab, 374.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under section 29 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to look into the question of electoral roll and submitted that the view expressed in PLD 1981 Lah. 374 on which reliance has been placed by learned Tribunal was set aside by the Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Hussain's case (1). It has been held therein. "the question as to the right to be enrolled as a voter could not be raised after the final publication of the electoral roll. In section 20 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, a simple requirement is that a person shall be qualified to be a candidate for election to an electoral unit, if for the time being his name appears on the electoral roll of that electoral unit".
' Their Lordships had taken note of Syed Aminuddin Chowdhury v. The Election Tribunal etc. (2), SiraJul Islam v. Ahsan Ali Mondal and others (3) and Riaz Muhammad Khan Mazari v. Mureed Hussain and others (4) while pronouncing judgment.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not find heart to controvert this position. However, he submitted that the name of the petitioner had not been entered in the electoral roll in spite of the order passed.
' In support of his contention he could not refer to any piece of evidence. This plea had not been taken up in the election petition. The uncertified copy of the order of transfer of the vote of the petitioner produced by him bears a note of receipt of the order on 3rd August, 1983. The order was passed on 1st August, 1983, the same was received on 3rd August, 1983. We cannot, by any stretch of imagination, grant that the name was not entered in the electoral roll. Moreover, if the name had not appeared on the electoral roll, the nomination' papers of the petitioner would not have been accepted. We have not been able to find any weight in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the application submitted for transfer of vote was addressed to the Returning Officer and so it cannot be deemed that the order of transfer was passed by the Registration Officer, for the reason that the order was passed by the officer who was vested with both the responsibilities. The order was passed after having obtained a report from the Assistant Registration Officer. Mere mentioning of a wrong address is no ground to grant the contention of learned counsel. Moreover, this plea was never taken up before the Election Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal has also addressed the order to be that of Registration Officer.
We are convinced that the learned Tribunal passed the order on a wrong assumption of law, i. e.
That the learned Tribunal could look into the ground of transfer of vote. The order thus was pass without lawful authority.
' The same is set aside.
(1) 1982 SCMR 307 (2) PLD 1968 SC 235
(3) P D 1969 SC S (4) 1980 SCMg 548 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.