2006 PLP 212 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

Shah Muhammad son of Said Khan, petitioner, with the election symbol of "Comb" and Shah Muhammad son of Noor Khan, respondent No.5, with the election symbol "Umbrella" along with .16 others contested elections to the general seats (Male) in U.C. No.38, Tehsil Rojhan, District Rajanpur. The results were consolidated. According to the consolidated statement in Form-XV, the said petitioner had polled 229 votes while the respondent No.5 had polled 440 votes. The same result was described in A Part-I of Form-XVI prepared by the Returning Officer. However, in Part-II of the said Form, it was the petitioner who came to be recorded as one of the four winning candidates to the said seats. A notification was accordingly issued. The respondent No.5 approached the respondent No.2 with an application on 29-9-2005 that he had polled 440 votes and he is the son of Noor Khan but because of confusion as to similarity of name, the petitioner who is son of Said Khan has been declared elected. The matter was referred to the Returning Officer and he corrected the records accordingly and issued a revised result.

2. I may note here that this writ petition was admitted to hearing on 6-10-2005 and the impugned order/result was also suspended. On 11-11-2005 C.M. No.1870 of 2005 was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the result has been corrected and the writ petition is to be withdrawn. When confronted, he admitted that the result was corrected in view of the said interim order passed by this Court. I, therefore, refused to permit the said withdrawal and also summoned the entire relevant records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 should have approached the Election Tribunal in this matter and could not have gone to the respondent No.2. It is further being stated that this Court should also restrain itself from making any inquiry by going through the record. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, urges that it is purely clerical error and does not at all involve challenge to election or its setting aside as being void.

4. I have examined the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Law Officer. Now I have examined the results sent by the Presiding Officers of the several polling stations of the said constituency on the basis whereof the results were consolidated in Form-XV and then in the Form-XVI. I have compared the entries in the Form-XV as well as Part-I of Form-XVI with the said results and find the same to be correct with reference to each and every polling station. None of the learned counsel for the parties have been able to point out any error or defect and on my own I have found none. Thus, in the Form-XV as well as Part-I of Form-XVI, it has been correctly recorded that the petitioner with the election symbol of "Comb" polled 229 valid votes and the respondent No.5 with the election symbol of "Umbrella" polled 440 valid votes. However, in Part-II of the said Form-XVI it came to be mentioned that it is the petitioner who is at No.2 of the list of duly elected candidates.

5. Having, thus, examined the record, I find that it is purely a clerical error and the respondent No.2 or Returning Officer has not done any act which can be stated to be without lawful authority by correcting the said clerical error. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed.

6. The records be returned to the official who has brought the same. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./S-508/L Petition dismissed.