KARACHI, May 14: A division bench of the Sindh High Court on Tuesday put deputy attorney-general and the advocate-general Sindh on notice in a petition of a former minister of defence, Aftab Shaban Mirani, in which he has challenged entries in the electoral list for Taluka Khanpur in Shikarpur District.

Represented by Abrar Hasan, Mr Mirani has contended, in his petition, that without removing such entries holding of fair and impartial elections would be jeopardized.

It was his contention that for the purpose of election, to be decided as provided by the Supreme Court, arrangements had been made for registration and revision of the electoral lists by the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and Sindh (Respondent Nos 1 and 2). Further, for the purpose of revising the electoral list, the respondent Nos 3 and 4 had been appointed registration and revising authority under the Electoral Rolls Act of 1974 for the Shikarpur District.

The respondents had formulated, drafted and published a comprehensive manual containing regulations governing receipt of claims, objections and applications for correction in the electoral lists. In the context of the claims, objections and applications for correction pertaining to Taluka Khanpur, the respondents Nos 3 and 4 had committed wholesale irregularities and misconduct inasmuch as.

a) that according to Rule 68 of the said manual, certain unscrupulous persons made applications for addition of names in bulk in the following Deh of Taluka Khanpur.

i) Deh Redhu 442, ii) Deh Arija 323, iii) Deh Qutib Katto 31, iv) Deh Tarai 10, v) Deh New Zaikhail 51, vi) Deh Garhi Dakho 41, vii) Deh Khuharo 1, viii) Deh Shah wah 32, ix) Deh Mamdo- 35, x) Deh Burira- 34, xi) Deh Khumb Rawanti- 187, xii) Deh Noon- 446, xiv) Deh Mirza wah- 51, xv) Deh Wasand Kalhoro 206, xvi) Deh Khanpur- 1.

This conduct was contrary to the law, rules and regulations as framed by the respondents and, therefore, prompt objections were raised against this because as provided by Regulation 68 of the manual of instructions for the guidance of the registration officers, assistant registration officers, and revising authorities 2002, every objection to any entry and every application for correction of any particular entry was to be made in person, not through agent by every individual. In above cases, the objections and request for entry were made in bulk by one person.

b) Regulation 78 provided that the claim, objections and application for correction shall not be received by bulk from individual as enumerated above in a total of 1,990 such applications, pertaining to Taluka Khanpur, had been made not only in bulk but in violation of the prescribed form as most of the application were unsigned and without thumb impression. In many of these forms, there was not even an authorized agent appointed as per the Rules.

c) according to the prescribed procedure, once these forms are received from an individual, they were to be received individually by the revising authority and/or RO of the ARO. In the above-mentioned cases such compliance with the regulations was not made and at the time of receiving these applications in bulk, in no application any signature was affixed by the RO or the ARO neither a date was fixed for hearing of the same.

d) according to Rule 90, application is liable to be rejected if it was not in accordance with the said rule.

It was submitted that none of the above-mentioned 1,990 applications had complied with the said rules. They had failed to give any National Identity Card number, neither were there any signature nor had they given proper addresses. e) the handwriting in all the forms was of one person. These defects were pointed out to the revising authority on 8. 5. 2002 in his office, but he did not take any step for examination nor called any person individually from 9am to 5pm on that date.

f) there were hardly about 200 persons outside the office of the revising authority on 9. 5. 2002, whereas the claims of 1,990 candidates were submitted and accepted in bulk.

g) the petitioners requested the revising authority ( respondent No 4) to allow them to participate in the examination of these bogus persons, but he did not do the same and called fake persons and they were allowed to enter the chamber by the staff, whereas petitioners and their representatives were barred.

h) the petitioners sent two telegrams at 3:45 pm and 5pm the same day, ie, 8.5. 2002 to the respondent No 1 about the above-said position, but to no avail.

The above conduct of the respondents amounted to interpolations, fraudulent insertion of incorrect entries in the electoral rolls which could subvert the holding of fair and impartial elections.

The petitioners, time and again, informed the respondents about this irregularly and illegality, but to no avail.

It was Mr Mirani’s contention that if these bogus entries pertaining to fictitious persons continues on the electoral roll pertaining to Taluka Khanpur, then the holding of fair elections would be jeopardized.

It is the petitioner’s contention that the respondents had palpably flouted not only the rules, regulations and law, but also, by allowing such fake entries to continue on the electoral list, amounted to subversion of holding of fair elections.

Unless proper corrections were made in the electoral list pertaining to Khanpur, it was apprehended that bogus voters would continue to be on the electoral list of the area.

According to the constitution and the relevant laws, the respondents were bound to make corrections in the electoral list and to hold elections as per law.

The petitioners, being public representatives and permanent residents of the area, were interested in safeguarding the holding of fair election. The petitioner prayed to (a) declare that the procedure, mode and method adopted by the respondents Nos 3 and 4 on 8. 5. 2002 in accepting the applications for addition of names in bulk was not in accordance with the law, rules and regulations. (b) direct the respondents No 1 to 4 not to include names of the disputed 1,990 persons in the final voters list.