2001 PLP 1160 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 13, 14 & 18‑‑‑Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, Rr.9, 10, 16 ‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art‑199 ‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Nomination papers‑‑‑Rejection of‑‑‑Nomination papers. of candidate were rejected on the ground that number of the ward was wrongly mentioned in the said papers‑‑‑Candidate on coming to know about his mistake filed application for its correction, but same was disallowed by the Returning Officer and nomination papers of the candidate were rejected‑ Order‑of Returning Officer was upheld in appeal by the District Returning Officer‑.‑‑Validity‑‑‑Returning Officer for both the wards (right nub and mistaken number) was the same and wrong description of the number of the ward was just a clerical mistake‑‑‑Returning Officer, in circumstances, ought to have allowed correction especially when prayer in that respect was made well in time by the candidate‑‑‑Nomination .papers for all purposes was an application and was to be treated at par with any other pleading and clerical mistakes or misdescription in the pleadings were to be allowed by Courts to be corrected liberally‑‑‑High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction set aside orders of Returning Officer and District Returning Officer being without lawful authority and the candidate was allowed to correct number of ward in his nomination papers. Mian Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners. Jahangir Wahla, A.A.‑G. (on Court's call). Petitioner is enlisted at serial No.289 in Ward No. 16f/6 as voter. He filed nomination papers to contest elections to a general Muslim seat. However, he wrongly mentioned the number of ward in the nomination papers as 163/6. According to the learned counsel the forms were entertained and were even accepted and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of validly nominated candidates in the said ward (i.e. 163/6). On coming to know the said errors in the papers he filed an application before the learned R.O. that the said misdescription may be allowed to be corrected. This application was disallowed by the learned R.O. on 28‑2‑2001 and he also proceeded to reject the nomination papers on the said date. Appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was taken by the learned D.R.O., Gujranwala alongwith several other applications, he proceeded to dismiss the same holding that the learned R.O. has very rightly done the deed.

2. Learned counsel contends that the learned Returning Officer for Wards Nos. 156 to 163 was the same learned Presiding Officer and wrong description of the number of the ward was just a clerical mistake and the learned Returning Officer ought to have allowed this correction particularly, when the prayer was made well in time. I have gone through the copies, of the record placed alongwith this writ petition I find that the learned Returning Officer as well as the learned District Returning Officer have rather taken a very strict view of the matter. In fact I find that the impugned orders rather tantamount to making a fetish of technicality. The nomination paper for all purposes is an application and is to be treated at par without any other pleading. There is no dearth of authority that clerical mistakes or misdescription in pleadings are to be allowed to be corrected by the Court liberally. In the present case, it had been pointed out to the learned R.O. While he was seized of the matter that the said clerical error is to be corrected in the form and he being himself a competent officer to entertain the papers for both Wards Nos. 161 and 163 should have not at all hesitated to act justly and properly in the matter by allowing the correction of the said clerical error. So far as the learned D.R.O. is concerned I am constrained to observe that he has in all probability proceeded to dismiss all the appeals without even going through the record or appraising himself the facts of each and every case.

4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned orders of the learned Returning Officer and the learned District Returning Officer are set aside, being without lawful authority. The petitioner is allowed to correct the number of ward in the nomination papers as 161/6 and for this purpose he should immediately approach the learned Returning Officer who will make necessary correction and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Petition allowed.