AM1R ALAM KHAN, J. - This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 8902 of 1998 and W.P. No. 9853 of 1998.
2. The facts as set down in W.P. No. 9853/98 may be summarised as under:-
3. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 5 to 12 contested election for the seat of Councillor of ward No. 2, Town Committee, Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur. It is submitted that during the process of election, ward No. 2 was redelimited and voters of wards Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were included in ward No. 2 which had a total strength of 671 votes comprising 332 male and 339 female voters. According to the petitioner, he subsequently learnt that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are making attempt to introduce new voters in the electoral roll of the same ward whereupon the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1. The Returning Officer on the aforesaid representation, observed that the Election Authorities have not so far provided him the list of newly enrolled voters. It is submitted that the petitioner continuously visited the Returning Officer so that he may obtain voters' list but no list was supplied to him till 13.4.1998 and the petitioner thereafter alongwith other contesting candidates, who were also not supplied the voter's list, staged a protest and dharna in the city.
4. It was on 26.4.1998 that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7980/98 in this Court seeking a direction that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to hold election in ward Nos. 2, Town Committee, Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur in accordance with the list of voters made available to the petitioner and that the respondents be restrained to enroll any new vote in the said list. This petition was disposed of with the following observation:- "It is apprehended by the petitioner that the Election Authority after having issued the final Electoral Rolls are mischievously trying to introduce some voters into the same. The apprehension is misconceived as it is settled law that no change could be made in the Electoral Rolls when the constituency is called upon to elect its representatives. Disposed of."
The petitioner claims to have presented the said order before respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with the request that no new voter he introduced in the present list but the respondents in total disregard of the order passed by this Court on 27.4.1998 added new voters whereby the number of voters were increased from 671 to 770.
5. Aggrieved by the said alleged illegal inclusion of the voters, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P. No. 8902/98 seeking issuance of writ that the voters list notified by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may be cancelled and that the newly added voters may not be allowed to cast their votes. The said writ petition was admitted by me for regular hearing on 13.5.1998. The election was, however, held on 20.5.1998 wherein respondent No. 5 was declared as successful.
6. The above said election is sought to be declared void, illegal and unlawful on the ground that it is the settled law as also observed by this Court in W.P. No. 7989 of 1998 that no change could be brought in the electoral rolls after the constituency has been called upon to elect its representative but even inspite of the fact that this law as also the order passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the relevant authorities, the respondents proceeded to add new votes in the existing list and that by inclusion of those three votes, the result of the election was materially effected. It was also added that the election was held on non-political and non-party basis, yet respondent No. 5 gave out himself as the candidate of Pakistan Muslim League and the office bears of the Pakistan Muslim League have been convassing for his votes.
7. It would he noted that in the earlier filed W.P. No. 8902/98, the winning candidate Ghulam Mohy- ud-Din was not made a party and the main thrust of the petition was to the effect that respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were not the residents of the ward, hence not entitled to contest the election. It was also one of the prayers of the said petitioner that the new list allegedly incorporated in rolls may be ordered to be cancelled and it be directed that the voters mentioned therein shall not cast votes in the coming election. It is commonly known that preparation of electoral rolls is a continuous process which continues even before the election and thereafter. The one exception to the general rule is to the effect that when the constituency itself is called upon to elect its representative, the list prepared till the date of notification is to be considered as the final list for the purpose of the election and no more addition or delition be made in the said list. This was the intention of my order rendered on 27.4.1998 in W.P. No. 7980/98. It is submitted that despite the order above-referred, new votes were added and were allowed to cast the said votes. The election was held on 20.5.1998 while the writ petition complaining that the added votes have been cast in the election was filed on 23.5.1998 and was heard for the first time on 25.5.1998. The question as to whether new votes were added after the constituency was called upon to elect its representative and the allied question as to whether such votes were cast thereby disturbing the equilibrium of election are questions of fact which can only be gone into by the Election Tribunal and such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the writ jurisdiction, therefore, the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the relevant Election Tribunal by filing an election petition which even otherwise is the lawful course after the election has been held.
8. In result, these petitions are dismissed for the reasons stated above with no order as to costs.