' Through filing this Writ Petition it is prayed that the order of the Revising Authority, Khanpur, dated 8-11-1991 deleting his name from electoral roll of Ward No, 23 of City Khanpur on the ground that he had double vote be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's name has been enrolled in two electoral rolls, namely, the one for Ward No, 23 and the other relating to Ward No, 25, City Khanpur. An objection was filed by Khalid Kamal respondent No, 2 before the Revising Authority respondent No, 1 that the petitioner's name be deleted from Ward No, 23 since the petitioner's name stands also enrolled in electoral roll for Ward No, 25 and that he actually resides in this electoral area.
3. Although it is not apparent from record that the petitioner was served and heard by respondent No,1 before passing the impugned order yet it is admitted before me by the petitioner that he was present and was heard on the day the impugned order was passed. But his grievance is that despite his having shown decree dated 21-3-1988 passed by Civil Judge, Khanpur in his favour, to the learned Revising Authority that he owned property in Ward No, 23, therefore, he is entitled to retain his vote in that electoral roll and that his vote from electoral roll of Ward No, 25 be deleted but it was not done.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Revising Authority respondent No, 1 and for respondent No, 2 submitted that the petitioner did not produce the aforesaid decree of Civil Court before the Revising Authority and had simply shown his National Identity Card wherein his place of residence is shown as House No, 1846, Street No, 4, Mohallah Gharib Abad, Khanpur which falls in Ward No, 25, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed retaining his name on electoral roll of Ward No, 25 and deleting his name from Ward No, 23.
5. Respondent No, 2 Khalid Kamal says that Basti Nayyan (Mohallah Ghatib Abad) is presently known as Naseem Abad and Ismail Abad and both these localities are included in Ward No, 23.
6. In face of the aforementioned admitted facts it is quite clear that the petitioner lives in Ward No, 25, but he owns property in Ward No,
23. Obviously, therefore, he can lawfully retain his name in one of the two electoral areas and for that matter he can exercise his choice. It is admitted before me by the respondent/Revising Authority that the petitioner did ask for retaining his vote in Ward No, 23 but he deleted his vote from Ward No, 23 for his place of residence is in Ward No,
25. As indicated earlier, since the petitioner owns a house in Ward No, 23, therefore, he could legally ask for retaining his vote in Ward No, 23 and as observed earlier the Revising Authority in face of the proof produced could not lawfully ignore petitioner's choice.
7. For the foregoing reasons the learned Revising Authority by ignoring the choice of the petitioner deleted the vote of the petitioner from Ward No,23 which is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.