The petitioner was registered as a voter in the electoral roll of Ward No.5, Town Committee Abdul Hakim at two places, as Serial Nos.438 and 752. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan respondent filed an objection petition before the Revising Authority on 28-3-1996 to the effect that the petitioner's vote at Serial No.752 should be cancelled on account of double entry in the voters' list. The Revising Authority vide order dated 22-5-1996 allowed this objection with regard to the entry at Serial No.752. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan filed another objection petition for the purpose of deletion of petitioner's vote from Serial No.438 as well. This objection was, however, rejected by the Revising Authority vide order dated 22-5:1996. Rana Muhammad Asif respondent also filed an objection petition for deletion of the petitioner's vote existing at Serial No.438 of the voters' list. His objection was allowed on 22-5-1996 by the Revising Authority in the following words:--- "Double vote. Allowed."
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review application regarding the deletion of his name from the voters' list. He prayed that his name at one place in the electoral roll should be allowed to remain intact. It was stated in the Review Application that his name from voters' list at both the places had been deleted through clerical mistake and it required to be corrected. The Revising Authority, however, vide order dated 11-7-1996 dismissed the application pursuant to the stand taken by the objectors that Revising Authority after deciding the objections had become functus officio and it has no power of review and that the petitioner should avail his remedy provided by law. It is against this order passed by the Revising Authority that this Constitutional petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of Ward No.5 of Town Committee Abdul Hakim and he was also previously the member of the Local Council from that ward. His name was duly registered but the Revising Authority under mistake of fact deleted the petitioner's name from the electoral roll of Ward No.5 altogether. The result of the order passed on 22-5-1996 on the objection of Rana Muhammad Asif was that the petitioner has been denuded of his right to vote. According to him, this is a sacred right guaranteed by the Constitution as also under the provisions of the Electoral Act of 1974. He has further submitted that the Revising Authority on 22-5-1996 had rejected the objection of Muhammad Arshad Khan for deletion of petitioner's vote registered at Serial No.438 with a view to keep intact at least one vote of the petitioner but through clerical mistake or in oblivion of his earlier order he deleted the petitioner's vote existing at Serial No.438 of the voters' list on the objection petition of Rana Muhammad Asif.
This order in fact was nullity in law because, the same had been passed without power of review and without issuing notice to the petitioner. He has further assailed this order on the ground that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without realising that such a request made by Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan had already been refused by him. He has further submitted that the order dated 11-7-1996 passed by the Revising Authority is also liable to be set aside on the ground that it has been passed under mistaken view of law. He has contended that review was not asked for from him in the technical sense of the word. He in fact was called upon to recall the order dated 22-5-1996 passed on Rana Muhammad Asif's petition and to allow one vote of the petitioner to remain intact on the electoral roll. In this behalf he has referred to the contents of his petition made before the Revising Authority, in which it was stated that he had passed the impugned order under clerical mistake and it required to be corrected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has opposed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Revising Authority has been passed in accordance with law and it could not be set aside in Constitutional jurisdiction. The Assistant Election Commissioner, Khanewal who is present in Court in person conceded that the petitioner's name should exist at least at one place in the voters' list. He has stated that he has no objection if the impugned orders of the Revising Authority are set aside and the petitioner's name at Serial No.438 is allowed to be retained on the voters' list.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar with extreme care. The right of franchise indeed is a very sacred right which has been conferred on every citizen of Pakistan with specified qualifications. The system of governance in Pakistan as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan in the Federal Parliamentary System. The powers and authority of the State are to be exercised by the people of Pakistan through their chosen representatives. The preamble of the Constitution which is the reproduction of the Objectives Resolution which now forms substantive part of the Constitution as Article 2A provides as follows:--- And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order--- Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people; Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance andsocial justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;---"
It is thus clear that in Pakistan the powers and authority of the State shall be exercised through the chosen representatives of the people under democratic set---up. Democracy inheres Government of the people, by the people and for the people. The people choose their representatives in elections through adult franchise. Every citizen of mature and sane understanding has thus inalienable right to choose public representatives to run the country. Local Government institutions are also run through duly elected members under the relevant statutes. Thus the right to choose public representatives or in other words the right to vote is so sacred and fundamental in our political system that no eligible citizen can be deprived of this right on any technical ground.
6. The members of the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies are elected through direct and free vote. The qualifications of a person entitled to vote have been prescribed by Articles 51(2) and 106(2) of the Constitution. The relevant portions of these Articles are reproduced below:--- "51.---(1) The National Assembly shall consist of two hundred and seven Muslim Members to be elected by direct and free vote in accordance with law.
(2) A person shall be entitled to vote if---
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;
(b) he is not less than twenty-one years of age
(c) his name appears-on the electoral roll; and
(d) he is not declared by a competent Court to be of unsound mind. "
106.---(1) There shall be a Provincial Assembly for each Province consisting -of the number of members hereinafter specified to be elected by direct &free vote in accordance with law--- Balochistan... 40 The North-West Frontier Province80 The: Punjab 240 The Sindh 100
(2) A person shall be entitled to vote if---
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;
(b) he is not less than twenty-one years of age;
(c) his name appears on the electoral roll for any area in the Province; and
(d) he is not declared by a competent Court to be of unsound mind. "
7. The electoral rolls are prepared under section 6 of the Electoral Act, 1974. Under subsection (2) of this section, a person is entitled to be enrolled as a voter in an electoral area, inter alia, if he is resident of that electoral area. Under section 14 objections to the registration of voters' name, in the electoral roll of an electoral area have to be decided by the Revising Authority. The decision of the Revising Authority is considered to be final under the Act.
8. The afore-quoted Constitutional and statutory provisions make it clear that the petitioner's name from the voters' list could not have been deleted altogether. His name was required to be retained at one place in the voters' list. When the petitioner moved an application to correct the error which crept into the electoral roll on account of omission of his name from voters' list altogether, then it was not a case of review. Indeed what he asked for was to secure his Constitutional and statutory right of franchise, that his name should be brought back on the, electoral roll, which had been removed from the same through clerical mistake.
9. In the instant case the unrebutted plea of the petitioner is that he is resident of Ward No.5, Town Committee Abdul Hakim. He also remained a member of the local council from that area previously. Therefore, in pursuance of the Constitutional and the statutory rights aforesaid it was absolutely essential that he should have been registered as a voter. Needless to say that there is no averment that the petitioner is in any way disqualified to be enlisted as a voter in Ward No.5. No doubt the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll could not have existed at two different places but he was entitled to be registered at one place in the electoral roll. The petitioner stands disfranchised by deletion of his name from the electoral roll altogether, seemingly by mistake.
Rana ammad Arshad Khan respondent made two objections for deleting his name from Serial Nos.438 and 752. The Revising Authority accepted one objection while rejected the other, with the result that his name was allowed to remain at one place in the voters' list. This indeed was the correct decision. However, on an objection raised by Rana Muhammad Asif, his vote from Serial No.752 has also been deleted under the impression that it was the case of double entry. Obviously, the Revising Authority was oblivious of the fact that his vote at Serial No.438 had been allowed to remain intact.
10. The Revising Authority has refused to grant relief to the petitioner to correct the voters' list on the ground that after disposal of the objections the Revising Authority could not correct the electoral roll and as such the review application was not maintainable. As already indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, in the circumstances of the present case, it was not a case of review. The petitioner in fact had called for correcting clerical mistake which occurred on account of the acceptance of the subsequent objection of Rana Muhammad Asif. The objection of Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan with regard to entry of Vote No.438 was rejected because after deletion of vote registered at Serial No.752 it was no longer case of double vote entry. Therefore, when vote at Serial No.438 was deleted subsequently on the objection of Rana Muhammad Asif, it was evidently a clerical mistake, because then it was not a case of double vote entry. The Revising Authority in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical /inadvertent mistake could have recalled its order. Every Court and authority should liberally exercise inherent jurisdiction to correct patent errors of the nature in issue, with a view to secure valuable Constitutional and statutory rights of citizens. The relief in such cases should not be refused by taking hyper technical view.
11. For what has been discussed above, the order dated 22-5-1996, whereby the objection petition filed by Rana Muhammad Asif (respondent No.3) was accepted and the order dated 11-7-1996 passed by the Revising Authority are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
It is directed that the petitioner's name shall be brought back at serial No.438 of the electoral roll of Ward No.5 of Town Committee Abdul Hakim. Resultantly, the petition is accepted with no order as to costs.