JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by Bagicha Singh and others, hereinafter described as the petitioners, seeking a mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2, Punjab State Election Commission (for short "the Commission") and Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Electoral Registration Officer for Panchayat in Sub Division Ferozepur respectively, to delete the names of respondents No. 3 to 21 from the voter list of the Gram Panchayat village Malluwala and to enter the names of these persons in the voter lists of the Gram Panchayat of village Bhawra Azam Shah, Tehsil and Distt. Ferozepur, as they are ordinarily residents of village Bhawra Azam Shah and not of village Malluwala. They also seek a prohibition whereby the petitioners seek stay of the operation of impugned order. 2. The facts alleged are that in the year 1998, the preliminary electoral rolls based upon the electoral rolls used in the last election of the Gram Panchayat Mulluwala, Tehsil and Distt. Ferozepur, were duly published by the Election Commission. The names of respondents No. 3 to 21 were entered in the said list. The petitioners submitted an application in the prescribed form to the Electoral Registration Officer for the constituency i.e. Gram Panchayat Mulluwala, praying that the names of respondents No. 3 to 21 have erroneously been added in the electoral rolls as they are not ordinary residents of the constituency and their names should be struck off. The Electoral Registration Officer got the matter inquired into through Halqa Revenue Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Ferozepur. He reported that respondents No. 3 to 21 are living in the houses constructed in their fields falling in the area of village Bhawra Azad Shah and not in the area of village Malluwala. After hearing the parties, the Electoral Registration Officer concluded that respondents No. 3 to 21 are not ordinary residents of Gram Panchayat of village Mulluwala. On 28.5.1998 he directed the deletion of the names of respondents No. 3 to 21 from the electoral rolls of village Mulluwala. On 3.6.1998 respondents No. 3 to 21 made a representation to respondent No. 1 who ordered the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)-cum-District Electoral Officer to enlist their names in voter list of village Mulluwala. When the petitioners came to know of that order, they approached respondent No. 1 and submitted a representation. On 3.6.1998 respondents No. 3 to 21 made a representation to respondent No. 1 who ordered the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)-cum-District Electoral Officer to enlist their names in voter list of village Mulluwala. When the petitioners came to know of that order, they approached respondent No. 1 and submitted a representation. On receipt of this representation, the Commissioner ordered the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)-cum-District Electoral Officer, Ferozepur, to take final decision after hearing both the parties. The District Electoral Officer, respondent No. 2 heard both the parties. Respondents No. 3 to 21 are stated to have admitted that they have not changed their residence since their settlement on the land which situate in the revenue estate of village Mulluwala. Arguments were heard and on 8.6.1998 respondent No. 2 confirmed the earlier order pertaining to deletion of the names of respondents No. 3 to 21 from the electoral rolls of Gram Panchayat of village Malluwala. Respondents No. 3 to 21 did not file any appeal against the earlier order but in December, 1998 one Mohinder Singh respondent filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 11581 of 1998. On 10.12.1998, this Court permitted the said writ petition to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners in the said writ petition to file an appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 3. On 16.12.1998, it is alleged that respondents No. 3 to 21 filed an appeal before the State Election Commission, Punjab against the order dated 20.6.1998 and prayed that they should be enrolled as voters of Gram Panchayat village Malluwala. Before deciding the appeal, respondent No. 1 sought the report from the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)-cum-District Electoral Officer, Ferozepur, who submitted his report on 12.3.1999. The Additional Deputy Commissioner visited the spot and heard the parties. According to the petitioners, other reports were called and so submitted. Respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal of respondents No. 3 to 21. By virtue of the present petition, it is asserted that the said order is invalid and is liable to be quashed because the appeal was time barred. Respondent No. 1 could not condone the delay and in any case did not consider to pass the order for condonation of delay. By virtue of the present petition, it is asserted that the said order is invalid and is liable to be quashed because the appeal was time barred. Respondent No. 1 could not condone the delay and in any case did not consider to pass the order for condonation of delay. Otherwise on facts also, it is asserted that respondents No. 3 to 21 could not be registered as voters from village Malluwala and they had not even deposited the requisite fee for filing of appeal. 4. In the reply filed, petition as such has been contested. Respondent No. 1 in the reply submitted pointed out that this Court had allowed the filing of the appeal and thereupon the State Election Commission had considered the appeal and decided it in accordance with law. It had taken into account various important documents and, thus, the impugned order, copy of which is Annexure P-6, is validly passed. It is reiterated that it has only set aside the order passed by the Electoral Registration Officer dated 20.6.1998. 5. The main contest was offered by respondents No. 3 to 21. In their joint reply, it has been pleaded that Joginder Singh respondent had remained elected Sarpanch of village Malluwala. Since the year 1978, they are residents and permanent voters of village Malluwala. During the elections of Panchayat held in the month of June, 1998, respondent No. 14 was a candidate for the post of Sarpanch and votes of respondents No. 3 to 21 were deleted under political pressure on 21.6.1998. The Commission after calling the various reports found that respondent No. 2 had wrongly deleted the names of respondents No. 3 to 21 and had rightly allowed the appeal. It is reiterated that respondents No. 3 to 21 are living and were rightly registered as voters from village Malluwala. It is admitted that some of the respondents had filed a writ petition in this Court but plea was raised that after the writ petition was disposed of, respondents No. 3 to 21 had filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had heard the parties and thereupon had passed the order, copy of which is Annexure P-6, in accordance with law. 6. Respondent No. 1 had heard the parties and thereupon had passed the order, copy of which is Annexure P-6, in accordance with law. 6. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Commission did not condone the delay nor it had the jurisdiction to condone the delay and, therefore, it could not have entertained the appeal. There was no opinion even expressed if the delay is being condoned or not. In addition to that, reference was made to various documents so as to urge that, in fact, respondents No. 3 to 21 were wrongly added as registered voters of village Malluwala, who were, in fact, residents of village Bhawra Azam Shah. 7. On the contrary, respondents No. 3 to 21 has vehemently contended that respondents No. 3 to 21 have been casting their votes from village Malluwala and some of the respondents even were elected Sarpanch in the said village. 8. On careful consideration of the matter, it is patent that in the present writ petition one need not delve into the factual controversy. This is for the reason that respondent Mohinder Singh had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 11581 of 1998 seeking quashing of the order whereby the names of 18 members of his family were deleted from the voters list of village Malluwala. On 10.12.1998 following order was passed by this Court :- "Present :- Mr. C.M. Munjal for the petitioner. Order : Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition in order to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. We order accordingly. Thus petition is dismissed as withdrawn with permission to the petitioners to file an appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with law if so advised. Sd/- H.S. Brar, Judge December 18, 1998 K.S. Kumaran, Judge" It is clear from this order passed by this Court that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. There was no direction that the appeal must be entertained irrespective of it being time barred or not. The contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the appeal was decided in accordance with the direction of this Court is, therefore, misconceived. Only permission had been granted to the respondent to prefer an appeal in accordance with law. It did not absolve respondent No. 1 from considering the law and proceed accordingly. 9. The contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the appeal was decided in accordance with the direction of this Court is, therefore, misconceived. Only permission had been granted to the respondent to prefer an appeal in accordance with law. It did not absolve respondent No. 1 from considering the law and proceed accordingly. 9. The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has been amended to provide for the constitution of the State Election Commission and for vesting the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Panchayats and Municipalities in the State of Punjab. Under Section 27 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, no person is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once. Under section 28 of the said Act, subject to the provisions of Chapter VI of the aforesaid Act, a person is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for a constituency if he is above the age of 18 years on the qualifying date and more important that he should be ordinarily resident of that constituency. 10. What is meant by the expression "ordinarily resident" has been explained in Section 29 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 29 of the said Act read as under :- "29. Meaning of ordinarily resident. - (1) For the purpose of this section a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns or is in possession of a dwelling house in that constituency. (2) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therefrom. (3) A member of Parliament or the State Legislature shall not during the term of his office cease to be ordinarily resident in his constituency by reason of his absence from that constituency in connection with duties as such member. (4) A person kept in any place meant for the sole purpose of treatment of persons suffering from any mental illness or defectiveness or any other serious disease or who is detained in prison or other lawful custody at any place, shall not be reason thereof be deemed to be an ordinarily resident of that place." 11. (4) A person kept in any place meant for the sole purpose of treatment of persons suffering from any mental illness or defectiveness or any other serious disease or who is detained in prison or other lawful custody at any place, shall not be reason thereof be deemed to be an ordinarily resident of that place." 11. In addition to that, section 32 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 permits inclusion of names in electoral rolls, while Section 31 of the said Act provides for correction of entries in electoral rolls. This is to be done by the Electoral Registration Officer. Section 33 of the Act provides appeal against the orders passed by the Electoral Registration Officer under Sections 31 and 32 of the Punjab Election Commission Act, 1994. It reads as under :- "33. Appeal. - An appeal against the order of the Electoral Registration Officer made under section 31 or Section 32 shall lie to the Election Commission in such manner and within such time, as may be prescribed in this behalf." 12. The Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (for short "the Rules") have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 139 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Under Rule 6 of the Rules, an appeal can be filed against the order of the Electoral Registration Officer to the Election Commission within five days from the date of the order of the Electoral Registration Officer. In the present case in hand, the appeal has been filed on 16.12.1998 against the order of 20.6.1998. It is on the strength of these facts that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had urged that the appeal was time barred and this question had not at all been looked into by respondent No. 1. 13. Annexure P-6 is the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 while disposing of the appeal against the order of the Electoral Registration Officer dated 20.6.1998. A perusal of it reveals that the question is as to whether the appeal is time barred and whether the Election Commission is competent to condone the delay or the question of condoning the appeal has not been gone into. It is the duty of every Tribunal to look into the said controversy as to if the appeal is barred by time or not. Unfortunately, this fact has not been taken note of. 14. It is the duty of every Tribunal to look into the said controversy as to if the appeal is barred by time or not. Unfortunately, this fact has not been taken note of. 14. Before delving into the merits of the mater, respondent No. 1 should have considered the said controversy. Since it reflects considerably on the ultimate decision of respondent No. 1, it is appropriate that respondent No. 1 should consider the same. In this view of the matter, the impugned order Annexure P-6 cannot be sustained. 15. For these reasons, the impugned order Annexure P-6 is quashed. It is directed that respondent No. 1 will consider if the appeal was within time and whether it will condone the delay or can condone the delay or not. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that nothing said herein shall be taken as an expression or opinion on the merits of the matter. Order accordingly.