KARACHI, June 22: When a petition of former minister of defence Aftab Shaban Mirani challenging entries in the voter list for Taluka Khanpur, District Shikarpur, came up before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Thursday, AAG Sindh was told to file a counter-affidavit showing inclusion of the total number of voters in the list on May 8.

The bench comprised Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Justice Musheer Alam.

When the matter came up, AAG Sarwar Khan filed comments from the revising authority of the area concerned.

Abrar Hasan, advocate, representing Mr Mirani, submitted that although parawise comments had been filed by the relevant respondent, no one had filed counter-affidavit in rebuttal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner with the memo of the petition.

Counsel Hasan argued that it was humanly impossible to include the names of 1,990 people within three hours.

The court, thus, directed the AAG to file a counter-affidavit showing specifically the total number of voters included on that date.

Represented by 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, as provided by the Supreme Court, arrangements had been made for registration and revision of the voter lists by the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and the provincial election commissioner, Sindh (respondent Nos 1 and 2). Further for the purpose of revising the voter list, the respondent Nos 3 and 4 had been appointed registration and revising authority under the Electoral Rolls Act of 1974 for 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. Under the context of the claims, objections and applications for correction pertaining to Taluka Khanpur, Shikarpur District, province of Sindh, the respondent Nos 3 and 4 had committed wholesale irregularities, illegalities 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, therefore prompt objections were raised against this because as provided by Regulation 68 of 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 and 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 total 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 applications 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 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, the application is liable to be rejected if it is not in accordance with the said Rule.

It was the case of the petitioner that none of the above-mentioned 1,990 applications had been complied with the said Rules. They had failed to give any National Identity Card number neither there was any signature nor they gave 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, the petitioner had claimed.

g) The petitioner had 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 petitioner had sent two telegrams at 3.45pm and 5pm on 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, the petitioner said.

It was his contention that if these bogus entries pertaining to fictitious persons continue on the electoral roll pertaining to Taluka Khanpur, then the holding of fair and impartial elections would be jeopardized.

It is the petitioner’s contention that unless proper and appropriate corrections were made in the electoral list pertaining to Khanpur Taluka, it was apprehended that the above-mentioned bogus voters would continue to reflect on the electoral list of the area.

The petitioner, therefore, had prayed to: a) declare that the procedure, mode and method adopted by respondents Nos 3 and 4 on 8. 5. 2002 in accepting the applications for addition of the names in bulk was not in accordance with the law, rules and regulations.

b) Direct the respondent Nos 1 to 4 not to include the names of the disputed 1,990 persons in the final voters list.

The matter has been adjourned to July 3.