P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MASUD AHMAD, J.‑

The petitioner, Ata Muhammad, had been registered as a voter in Ward No. 1 of the Shahpur Sadar Municipal Committee, at serial No.

156. Elections to the Municipal Committee Shahpur Sadar were to be held in September 1957. On the 18th September 1957, the petitioner filed four nomination papers as a candidate from one of the constituencies. In two of these nomination papers he had been proposed by Muhammad Aslam and seconded by Khuda Bakhsh and in the remaining two he was proposed by Khuda Bakhsh and seconded by Muhammad Aslam. The officer, whose duty it was to scrutinise the nomination papers, rejected one of the nomination papers in which he had been proposed by Muhammad Aslam and seconded by Khuda Bakhsh, on the ground that the serial number of the petitioner in the nomination paper had been wrongly recorded as 158 instead of

156. The remaining three nomina tion papers were accepted, upon which Ch. Muhammad Hayat, respondent No. 3, filed a revision petition, under sub‑rule (4) of rule 21 of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952. This was heard by. Sardar Manzoor Ahmad Khan Leghari, respondent No. 1, presumably, under the authority conferred on him by rule 44 of the said Rules. By an order dated the 30th .September 1957, respondent No. 1 accepted the revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 and rejected all the remaining three nomination papers, on the ground that the same had not been validly presented under sub‑rule (2) of rule 16 of the said Rules. The petitioner thereupon presented the present writ petition, in which he prays that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of respondent No. 1, by which he rejected his nomination. papers, that a writ of mandamus be issued against respondent No. 2 (the Govern ment of West Pakistan) directing it to hold elections in Ward No. 1 of the Shahpur Sadar Municipal Committee and not to declare respondent No. 3 duly elected as a Municipal Commissioner from that Ward, and such other appropriate writ, direction or order, as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of this case, be issued. The petition is opposed by all the three respondents. The order of respondent No. 1, accepting the revision petition of respondent No. 3 and rejecting the three nomina tion papers of the petitioner, has been challenged on a number of grounds. The first ground is that the revision petition of respondent No. 3 was not properly verified and presented in time; the second ground is that the petitioner was not given any notice by registered post of the hearing of that revision petition; the third ground is that sub‑rule (2) of rule 16 of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952, applies only where the same person proposes or seconds the names of different candidates and not where any such person proposes or seconds the name of the same person as a candidate to represent a constituency and, therefore, the nomination papers were validly filed under the said Rules. No arguments were addressed to us relating to the first ground which appears to have been abandoned. A half hearted attempt was made to support the second ground on which the petition is based, but as it was admitted that the petitioner did appear before the Revising Officer, this objec tion, in our opinion, has no force and need not, therefore, be discussed. Regarding the third ground on which the petition is based, the case, as set out in the petition and argued before us, is that all the four nomination papers were handed in at one and the same time, namely, at 9‑42 a.m. on the 18th September 1957, and, therefore, it could not be said which of the nomination papers was filed first. It was also con tended that sub‑rule (2) of rule 16 of these Rules comes into play only where the same person proposes or seconds the name of different candidates for election from the same constituency and not where he proposes or seconds the name of the same candidate from a constituency, in which case there is no limit to the nomination forms which may be subscribed on behalf of a candidate by the same person. It was also contended that even if this sub‑rule be held applicable to the case of a candidate on whose behalf more than one nomination paper have been filed, it would not prevent one person being a proposer in one nomination paper and seconder in the other. Sub‑rule (2) of rule 16 of the Municipal Election Rules, 1952, on the interpretation of which the decision of this case depends, is in the following words:

"No person shall subscribe as proposer or seconder a number of nomination papers greater than the number of members to be elected to represent the constituency in question, and if a person has subscribed, whether as proposer or seconder, a larger number of nomination papers than there are vacancies to be filled, only those of the papers so subscribed which have been first received up to the number of such vacancies, shall be deemed to be valid." In our opinion, what this sub‑rule lays down is that a person shall not subscribe, whether as proposer or seconder, a larger number of nomination papers, whether relating to the same or different candidates, than the number of members to be elected from a particular constituency and if any such person has subscribed in any capacity, namely, whether as B proposer or seconder, a larger number of nomination papers than there are vacancies to be filled, only the nomination paper which has been received first in point of time shall be deemed to have been validly presented. If the intention of the framers of these Rules had been that this sub‑rule should not apply to the case of nomination papers presented on behalf of one candidate, its language would have been different. The limitation placed by the first part of this sub‑rule is on the number of nomination papers to be sub scribed by any such person, whether as a proposer or seconder, and not merely on the subscribing of such nomina tion papers relating to different candidates. Therefore, what this sub‑rule means is that if one member is to be elected by a particular constituency, only one nomination paper can be subscribed by a person, whether as a proposer or as a seconder. If, however, he subscribes more than one, the nomination paper received first in point of time will be considered to have been validly presented. The restriction on the filing of the nomination papers, in our opinion, applies both to a person proposing and a person seconding. In other words, a person cannot be the proposer of one candidate and seconder of another or proposer of a candidate and seconder of the same candidate in another nomination paper. If, however, any person subscribes, in any capacity, more than one nomination paper, relating to the same or another candidate, from the same constituency, only that one of the nomination papers subscribed by him will be accepted, as having been validly presented, which was received first in point of time. The substantive part of the rule being against the con tention of the petitioner, he can succeed only if he is able to establish that the four nomination papers were presented by him at different times and that, therefore, the first one presented by him was valid. The position taken up by the petitioner in the petition, as well as in the arguments before us, was that all the nomination papers were presented by him at one and the same time. It means that as none, of the nomination papers, can be said to have been presented first in point of time, his case would not be covered by the second part of the sub‑rule, which treats the first of these nomination papers as being validly presented. The order of the revising officer, therefore, in our opinion, was in accordance with the relevant rule and does not suffer from any defect. Reference was also made during arguments, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to the first proviso to sub‑rule (1) of rule 21 of these Rules, but, in our opinion, this proviso has no application to this case. What this proviso lays down is that if the nomination of any candidate has been refused on the ground of irregularity in respect of a nomination paper and if that very candidate has been duly nominated by another nomination paper, the refusal of his nomination on any such ground would not affect his nomination in respect of the other nomination paper. If the petitioner had filed more than one nomination paper and if some of them had been invalid and some valid, the rejection of invalid nomination papers would not have affected the nomination papers which had been validly presented. In the present case, it has not been established that any of the nomination papers filed on behalf of the petitioner was validly presented and, therefore, the proviso to sub‑rule (1) of rule 21 does not, in our opinion, in any way help him. For reasons given above, in our opinion, the order to which objection is being taken does not suffer from any defect. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. A.H. Petition dismissed