KARACHI, July 15: Three registered voters of National and provincial assembly constituencies NA 258 and PS 127 have challenged in the Sindh High Court the notification pertaining to delimitation, claiming that it was without lawful authority and violative of the rules, laws and instructions.

Hameed Azfar, Tasneemul Hasan Farooqi and Iqbal Mohammed Ali have challenged the delimitation through counsel Abrar Hasan, advocate, making the Election Commission of Pakistan, member Election Commission (EC) of Pakistan for Sindh, the provincial election commission and the Population Census Organization the respondents.

They prayed for issuing writ directing the respondents to amend the final list as announced by notification No XXXIV dated 26th March, 2002 in respect of constituencies PS-127 and NA 258 as per the suggestions contained in the petition.

They also sought permanent/temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents and/or representatives from implementing the notification.

The petitioners are registered and enrolled voters in several constituencies of the National Assembly and the Sindh Assembly, more particularly one of the petitioner, ie, the petitioner No 1 had been a candidate of the Sindh Assembly from old district Malir now forming part of Karachi city.

According to facts of the case, the respondent No 1 invited objections/ representations on the proposed delimitation of constituencies of the Sindh and National Assembly. The objections were filed by the petitioners.

Among other constituencies the petitioners had objected to the proposed delimitation of two constituencies, PS 127 and NA 258, and thus the petition concerns and relates to these two constituencies. The hearings of objections took place from May 20 to 30 at Karachi.

Before the commencement of hearing of objections by the respondent No 2 in respect of the delimitation of constituencies preliminary legal objections to the jurisdiction and powers of the respondent No 2 were raised to the effect that in the past no single member of the EC, hailing from the same province, ever heard and decided objections/proposals to the delimitation of constituencies. It was contended that for many reasons as the representations /objections/proposals have to be decided by the EC jointly, not by a single member of the EC.

In this context, section 10(3) of the Delimitation Act of 1974 was referred to which says that “the Commission shall after hearing and considering the representations, (if any, received by it make such amendments, alterations or modifications in the preliminary list published under sub-section (1) as it thinks it necessary and shall publish in the Official Gazette, the final report and list of constituencies showing the areas included in each constituency.

The other Preliminary Legal Objection was raised before the respondent No 2, who was hearing objections at Karachi singly that objections/representations/ proposals in respect of constituency No NA 258 were not filed in accordance with law, rules and instructions and as the said objections were not legal, the same were liable to be dismissed summarily.

It was submitted that as per notification of 26th March 2002 issued by the respondent No 1 in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Delimitation of Constituencies Act of 1974, the suggestions should have been marked on a map showing clearly boundary of each constituency in a district and eight copies each of the explanatory note containing suggestions and the same number of maps duly marked should have been sent by the objector to the respondent No 1. This was not followed by other objections, yet the respondent No 2 entertained these objections and heard the same.

It was submitted that the entity of Patwari/Tapedar Circle and the Census Blocks/Circles/Charges had to be preserved, but many objectors bifurcated these charges and proposed that these bifurcated and divided charges should be included in the particular constituency.

It was submitted that the respondent No 2 did not pass any order on these objections and in fact failed to pass any order on the objections filed by the petitioners. Instead the respondents issued a final list in which the preliminary proposals were modified at the whims of the respondents.

As per provisions of section 9 of the Delimitation of Constituencies Act of 1974 the principles of delimitation were to be applied while delimiting the constituencies, the petitioners, contended.

These principles include: i) Geographically compact areas; ii) Existing boundaries of an administrative unit; iii) Facilities of communication and public convenience; and iv) Other cognate factors.

The sole purpose for consideration of these principles was to ensure homogeneity in the creation of a constituency. It was submitted that as per objection it was pointed out to the respondents No 2 that the constituencies objected to should be equal among themselves in population and that they should be contiguous and easily accessible.