1984 PLP 572 (CLC)

(a) Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979‑ ‑‑ R. 15 (3), proviso (ii) & r. 13‑Provisional Constitution order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑‑Nomination paper‑Defect of substantial nature not specified or explained in rules‑What is‑Depends upon facts of each case and material presented before Returning Officer‑Omission to comply with mandatory requirements of rule 13, held, included in defect of substantial nature. Imtiaz Ali's case P L D 1958 S C 228 and Aman Ullah v. The Election Tribunal P L D 1961 Lah. 907 ref. (b) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ ‑‑Art. 9‑Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974), Ss. 26 & 18 ‑ Electoral rolls‑Correctness of entries in electoral rolls ‑ High Court in cons titutional jurisdiction or Election Tribunal, held, not prevented from enquiry into correctness of entries in electoral rolls for purposes of examining candidate's qualifications. Ahmad v. Mir Muhammad Khan P L D 1966 Lah. 927 ; Faisal Saleh Hayat v. The Returning Officer P L D 1977 Jour. 295 ; Ghulam Rasul v. Election Tribunal/D. C., Mutton P I. D 1980 Lah. 327 ; Shahzar Khan v. Sind Labour Court No. 4, Karachi 1977 S C M R 103 and' Muhammad Shafique MuJahid v. Superintendent, Small Telegraph Offices, Gujrat 1983 P L C 572 ref. (c) Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979‑ ‑‑R. 15 (3), proviso (iii)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Election‑‑‑Union Council‑Disqualification of candidate -Returning Officer, held, cannot enquire into questions (i) that electoral list is invalid ‑because it has been prepared by incompetent officers or because it contains omissions of persons entitled to vote or includes persons not so entitled or contains misdescription in names of voters or (ii) that persons named therein are not entitled to vote (subject to their identity not being in any doubt) or to stand as candidates for election (subject to their not being under any disqualification). (d) Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979‑ ‑‑‑‑ R. 15 (3) (iii)‑Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974), Ss. 26 & 18‑ Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Electoral roll, held, is not sacrosanct regarding candidate's qualification to stand for elections‑Question as to whether candidate fulfils all qualifica tions required of him to stand as a candidate‑Returning Officer can examine such question. Muhammad Tufail v. Muhammad Salim P L D 1967 Kar. 104 ; Faisal Saleh Hayat v. The Returning Officer P L D 1977 Jour. 295 ; Ghulam Rasool v. The Election Tribunal P L D 1980 Lah. '327 ; Syed Aminuddin Chawdhury's case P L D 1968 S C 235 and Sirajul Islam's case P L D 1969 SC5ref. (e) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑ ‑‑‑S. 3 (1) (fix) & S. 20‑Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, r. 15 (3) (iii)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 ‑Election‑Local Council‑‑Special interest seat of "worker" Qualifications‑Requirements going to root of his qualification as a candidate, held, must be fulfilled‑Mere entry of candidate appear ing in electoral roil not necessary‑Returning Officer not deterred from looking into truth of matter‑Qualifications of candidate for worker's seat to be satisfied independently of entries appearing in electoral rolls‑Finality attaching to electoral rolls as provided by Rule 15 (3), proviso (iii.) would not prevent Returning Officer from enquiring into qualification. Syed Aminuddin Chawdhury's case P L D 1968 S C 235 and Sirajul Islam's case P L D 1969 S C 5 ref. (f) Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979‑ ‑‑‑R. 15 (3), proviso (iii)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑Bar of r. 15(3), proviso (iii) to extent that it prevents Return ing Officer from enquiring into qualifications of a candidate as are prescribed by Ordinance, held, ultra vires‑Returning Officer and Appellate Authority, have right to enquire into correctness of entry as regards occupation. ‑‑R. 15 (3), proviso (iii)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9=Words "obvious error or defect" in r. 15 . (3), proviso (iii) held, erroneous in context as they do not draw distinction between error or defect which is substantial or otherwise‑Words "obvious error or defect" cannot be equated with "error apparent on face of record"‑One line entry, in electoral roll‑Obvious error or defect in electoral roll has to be equated with one which is apparent on face of record, then that would be impossible to decipher any, unless Returning Officer accepts evidence aliunde ‑ Word "obvious" cannot be treated as implying something readily preceiv able by eye or intellect or something plain or apparent from roll but means that which becomes manifest to Returning Officer by some evidence produced before him and which convinces him that entry is evidently incorrect or defective.‑[Interpretation of statutes]. (h) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ ‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974), Ss. 26 & 18‑Electoral roll‑‑Entry‑Decision on question of profession arrived at by Return ing Officer and appellate authority ex facie neither appearing to be foolish nor perverse‑Interference declined. JUDGMENT RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No. 440 of 1983 and Writ Petition No. 452 of 1983, both filed by Haji Abdul Rehman, petitioner, calling in question the order of the Returning Officer Murree, dated 22nd October, 1983 and of the Appellate Authority, dated 26th October, 1983, accepting the nomination papers of Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Rafiq, respondents, respectively for the special interest seat of "worker" to the Municipal Committee, Murree.

2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that when the nomina tion papers were filed by Ghulam Hassan and Muhammad Rafiq, respon dents, and others for the special interest seat of "worker" to the Municipal Committee, Murree, on 20th October, 1983 he objected to the nomination papers of the said respondents and certain others on the ground that they were not "workers" and that the Returning Officer, Murree, by his order, dated 20th October, 1983, accepted the nomination paper of Ghulam Hassan, but rejected that of the latter. It is further submitted that Muhammad Rafiq, respondent, then preferred an appeal which was accepted on 26th October, 1983 and his nomination paper was also accepted. In respect of Ghulam Hassan, respondent, it is submitted that his name was recorded at serial No. 68 on the electoral roll of Ward No.

7. Municipal Area, Murree, which showed his profession as "business" and that he actually carried on business under the name of Kashmir Art on Jinnah Road, Murree, where he sold woollen shawls and that he was also an income‑tax assessee. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the affidavit (Annexure D/1 to Writ Petition No. 440 of 1:983) filed by the petitioner before the Returning Officer. In respect of Muhammad Rafiq, respondent, it is submitted that his name was recorded at serial No. 373 on the electoral roll Ward No. 3, Municipal Area, Murree, which showed his profession as "service" and that he actually was a Chowkidar, as was also apparent from his application for the registration of his vote (Annexure K to Writ Petition No. 452 of 1983) which he had filed, in which he had shown his occupation as Chowkidar. It is further contended, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Irntiaz Ali's case (P L D 1958 S C 228) and proviso (iii). to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1,979, that an electoral roll once revised and duly published cannot be objected to, that the same becomes sacrosanct that the Returning Officer cannot go behind it and has to accept the entry of profession as given therein, in order to determine whether the respondents are "workers" or otherwise, and that he has no power to accept evidence aliunde in disproof of the entries in the electoral roll: With regard to the words "obvious error or defect" in proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, it is vehemently urged that it refers to an error or defect apparent on the face of the electoral roll, such as, misdescription of name, printer's mistake, but not a substantial error or defect, such as the age, profession or residence of the voter. To show the difference between provisos (ii) and (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, learned counsel has referred to Aman Ullak v. The Election Tribunal (P L D 1961 Lah. 907) in order to stress that proviso (ii) is not applicable to the case, as it relates to the overlooking of defects found in nomination papers and that the present case is covered by proviso (iii), which relates to the overlooking of defects or errors in the electoral rolls, if they are obvious or apparent on the face of such rolls. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that the Returning Officer, Murree, had applied double standard in the case and whilst he had accepted the nomination forms of other candidates solely on the basis of their profes sions, as were shown in the electoral rolls, he had accepted the nomination paper of one of the respondents by accepting extraneous evidence. As regards Muhammad Rafiq, respondent, in particular, it is also submitted that basically he was a Chowkidar and, as such, he did not fall in the category of "worker", as defined in section 3 (1) (lix) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the words "obvious error or defect" appearing in proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, do not merely mean errors or defects apparent on the face of the electoral roll, such as spelling mistakes in the name, parentage or address of the voters or numerical mistakes as in their ages, but all obvious errors or defects, not affecting the entitlement of the voter to vote, which show that certain entries therein are in actual fact untrue. It is submitted that under section 6 of the Electoral Roils Act, 1974, electoral rolls are prepared for the benefit of persons entitled to be enrolled as voters and that the electoral rolls are only sacrosanct to the extent that they enable such persons, whose names are borne or the rolls, to cast their votes, provided that no genuine objections are raised as to their identity, but they do not deter the Returning Officer, under proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, from accepting nomination papers filed by valid voters merely because parti culars of their ages, profession or residence are wrongly shown. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to Ahmad v. Mir Muhammad Khan (P L D 1966 Lah. 927) Faisal Saleh Hayat v The Returning Officer (P L D 1977 Jour. 295), Ghulam Rasul v. Election Tribunal D. C., Multan (P L D 1980 Lah. 327). In the light of these authorities, it is submitted that the Returning Officer was justified in finding out the actual occupations professed by the respondents on the date of the filing of the nomination papers and ii the earlier entry in the electoral rolls stated otherwise, to give them the advantage of the occupations actually professed by them. As regards the case of Muhammad Rafique in particular, the learned counsel has cited Shahzar Khan v. Sind Labour Court No. 4, Karachi (1977 S C M R 103) and Muhammad Shafique Hujahid v. Superintendent Small Telegraph Offices, Gujrat (1983 P L C 572) to show that a Chowkidar falls. within the definition of "worker", as given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and, therefore, he even otherwise stands qualified to seek nomination to the special interest seats of worker.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to this case. It cannot be denied that in the instant case the occupations of Ghulam Hassan and Muhammad Rafique, respondents, appear in the electoral rolls as "business" and "service", respectively, whereas the nomination paper of the former was accepted by the Returning Officer and that of the latter by the appellate Authority on the ground that they were "workers". Both had filed nomination papers to contest the special interest seat of "worker".

5. The only question that arises is whether under the law, the Returning Officer was only bound to accept the entries regarding the profession of the two respondents, which appeared in the electoral rolls of his electoral unit, as sacrosanct, or he could have overlooked the same as manifestly wrong or defective, after accepting evidence aliunde. Since rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, is relevant in the said connec tion, the same may be reproduced here with advantage :‑ "15.‑(1) The candidates, their election agents, proposers and seconders, and one other person authorised in this behalf by each candidate may attend the scrutiny of nomination papers, and the Returning Officer shall give them reasonable opportunity for examining all nomination papers delivered to him under rule 13. (2) The Returning Officer shall, in the presence of the persons attend ing the scrutiny under sub‑rule (1) examine the nomination papers and decide any objection raised by any such person to any nomination. (3) The Returning Officer may, either of his own motion or upon objection, conduct such summary enquiry as he may think fit and may reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that‑ (a) the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a member ; (b) the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination paper ; (c) any provision of rule 13 or rule 14 has not been complied with ; or (d) the signature or thumb‑impression of the proposer or the seconder is not genuine Provided that‑ (i) the rejection of a nomination paper shall not invalidate the nomination of candidate by any other valid nomination paper ; (ii) the Returning Officer shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature and may allow any such defect to be remedied forthwith, such as error in regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate, his proposer or seconder ; and (iii) the Returning Officer shall not enquire into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll, and shall not reject a nomination paper on the basis of an entry in the electoral roll which contains an obvious error or defect. (4) The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting it, and shall, in the case of rejection, record a brief statement of the reasons therefor. (5) Where the solitary nomination paper of a candidate or where all the nomination papers of a candidate have been rejected, the Returning Officer shall, on request, supply to the candidate, on the same day, certified copies of such orders free of cost. (6) The Returning Officer shall immediately send to the. Deputy Commissioner the rejected nomination paper or papers alongwith his orders thereon." The whole case turns on proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of the rule, above referred to.

6. Before examining the law, it is necessary to say a few words about the mode of preparation of the electoral rolls and their annual revision by the Election Commission; as provided by the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, and their adoption by the Cantonment Boards and the local councils for their elections. The electoral rolls prepared by the Election Commission are supposed to be corrected and revised each year by the Election Commission under section 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. Information gleaned by us reveals that the electoral rolls last prepared in 1979 (with their correction sheets) by the Election Commission of Pakistan were never revised and corrected thereafter each year as required by law. In 1982 the Election Commission of Pakistan by its Press Note of 4th September, 1982, printed in various newspapers on 5th September, 1982 and later dates, called upon all persons whose names did not appear in the electoral rolls and all persons who desired corrections and deletions of existing erroneous entries, to move applications for any additions, deletions or corrections they desired should be made in such electoral rolls. The period prescribed for the receipt of such applications was 10th September, 1982, to 24th October, 1982, which period was extended from time to time upto 31st January, 1983. After such claims, objections and applications for corrections were decided by the Registration Officers posted in territories of the Cantonment Boards and the local councils etc., the final electoral lists, consisting of the 1979 electoral lists (with the correction sheets of 1979 and 1983) were finally published by the Election Commission on 31st March, 1983. These rolls were then adopted by the Cantonment Boards and the Punjab Election Authority for the 1983 elections. From this resume, it is apparent that the electoral rolls with correction sheets which were last prepared in 1979 by the Election Commission of Pakistan were never revised annually, as required by the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. Towards the end of 1982, some attempt was made to bring them up to date, by calling upon all persons who desired amendments to be made thereto, to make applications in the said respect, which response was abysmally Poor. Moreover, after such claims, objections and applications were decided, the electoral correction sheets were prepared and published with the 1979 electoral rolls. The finished product was the printed electoral lists of 1979 with the 1979 correction sheets and the‑freshly printed correc tion sheets of 1983. These were adopted by the Union Councils and the Cantonment Boards for the preparation of their own electoral rolls. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in the electoral rolls adopted by the Union Councils, discrepancies with regard to age, occupation or place of residence would be present.

7. With the above background, we now turn our attention to proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. This proviso gives power to the Returning Officer not to enquire into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll. But the question remains ; What is its effect if the Returning Officer should find that some particular of the applicant in the electoral roll is different from what is being alleged, e. g. the entry appearing in the electoral roll shows him to be twenty‑four years, but presently he is twenty‑five, or that the entry regarding his occupation states "business", but now he is a labourer, or that the entry regarding his address states "Jinnah Road", but in reality it is "Fatima Road".

8. In this respect we would examine provisos (ii) and (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. Proviso (ii) directs the Returning Officer not to reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect found therein which is not of a substantial nature and permits him to allow any such defect to be remedied forthwith, such as an error in regard to the name, serial number of electoral roll or other parti culars of the candidate, his proposer or seconder. What is a defect of a substantial nature has not been specified or explained in the Rules. It would depend upon the facts of each case and the material presented before the Returning Officer. What would obviously fail in the category of sub stantive defects would presumably include omissions to comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 13, such as where the candidate has not signed the declaration that he has consented to the nomination and that he is not subject to any disqualification, or the proposer and the seconder have not signed their declaration that neither of them have subscribed to any other nomination paper, these being the only substantive matters which by law have to be stated in the nomination paper. Apart from this, subject to special circumstances which may warrant a contrary finding, error in regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate, his proposer or seconder could be treated as of minor import. What are the "other particulars" of a candidate, which have to be mentioned in the nomination form, are his parentage, address, the nature of his special interest seat and the parti culars of the ward from which he is seeking election. (See Annexure `A' to W. P. No. 440 of 1983). Errors in this category, subject to special feature which may warrant a contrary finding, would again be treated as not of any particular substance.

9. We now turn our special attention to proviso (iii), which bars a Returning Officer from enquiring into the correctness or validity of any entry in an electoral roll : but which nevertheless mandatorily compels him not to reject a nomination paper on the basis of any entry in the electoral roll which contains an obvious error or defect. What has to be seen first is what is sacrosanct in the electoral roll which the Returning Officer cannot inquire into. Under section 29 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, the validity of electoral rolls, as prepared or revised under the Electoral Rolls Act, and the legality or the propriety of any proceedings or actions taken thereunder, by or under the authority of the Commissioner or his officers, are protected from judicial review of the Courts. Under section 26 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, electoral rolls cannot be declared as invalid by reason of any misdescription of persons enrolled therein, omission of names of persons entitled to be so enrolled or of inclusion of names of persons not so entitled. Section 1.8 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, also protects the validity of the electoral rolls in the same manner as section 26 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. Errors or defects in the electoral rolls can be pointed out and corrected under the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, and the1 Rules thereunder. There is nothing contained in this Act which prevents the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction or the Election Tribunals from enquiring into the correctness of entries in the electoral rolls, for the pur poses of examining a candidate's qualifications, This High Court in Ahmad v. Mir Muhammad Khan whilst dealing with proviso (iii) to subsection (3) of section 23 of the Electoral College Act, 1964, which read as follows :‑ "The Returning Officer shall not enquire into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll." Held that the finality attaching to the electoral roll under the aforesaid proviso could not be extended beyond the object and the purpose for which the electoral roll was prepared, namely, to ascertain whether the person concerned had the right to vote, but the entry of age, which was under challenge in the said case, was not final in so far as the question of can didature for membership of the Electoral College was concerned. The Court further held that the question of age was material for their purpose, it view of Article 157 of the Constitution and section 8 of the Electoral College Act, but its determination was not contemplated by any provision of law dealing with the preparation of the electoral roll. It, therefore, held that the qualification of age had to be determined independently of the entries appearing in the electoral roil and that the Election Tribunal was, therefore, within its right to take evidence on the question of the candi date's age irrespective of the entry appearing in the electoral roll. This view was reiterated by the Full Bench of the High Court in Muhammad Tufail v. Muhammad Salim (P L D 1967 Kar. 104.). The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Faisal Saleh Hayat v. The Returning Officer agreed with the view of the Full Bench at Karachi and held that the question of age with regard to a person seeking election to the Houses of Parliament or the Pro vincial Assemblies in Pakistan was a constitutional requirement, as provi ded in Article 62 of 1973 Constitution, and that proviso (iii) to sub section (3) of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act did not bar the Returning Officer from going into the question of age of the candidate. Finally, in Ghulam Rasool v. The Election Tribunal, this Court also held that proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, did not bar the Returning Officer from going into the question of age. Thus, what is sacrosanct and which the Returning Officer cannot enquire into is (i) that the electoral list is invalid, because it leas been prepared by incompetent officers, or because it contains omissions of persons entitled to vote, or includes persons not so entitled, or contains misdescription in the names etc., of the voters,' or (ii) that the person‑ named therein are not entitled to vote (subject to their identity not being in any doubt) or to stand as candidates for election (subject to their not being under any disqualification). As held by the Supreme Court in Syed Aminuddin Chaudhury's case (PLD 1968 S C 235) and Sirajul (slam's case (PLD 1969SC5), the right to be enrolled as a voter is different from the right to be a candidate, though the latter includes the former, and that the entry in respect of age cannot be placed on the same footing as the other entries. Similarly, other qualifications required of a candidate can be enquired into. Therefore, an electoral roll is not sacrosanct regarding a candidate's qualification to stand for elections. When it comes to a question as to whether a candidate fulfils all the qualifications required of him to stand as a candidate, the Returning Officer has to examine these matters. Thus, the main question that arises. is : What are the qualifications required by law for a candidate seeking election to a Union Council, in particular reference to the special interest seat of "worker" ? Under section 20 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the candi date must be a citizen of Pakistan, of the age of twenty‑five years on the last date fixed for the filing of the nomination papers and his name should appear on the electoral roll of that electoral unit and, by virtue of section 3 (1) (lix) of the same Ordinance, fulfil the qualifications required for a "worker". A candidate for election to the special interest seat o worker must fulfil all these requirements as any omission therefrom, would go to the root of his qualification as a candidate. All these requirements cannot be satisfied from the mere entry of the candidate as appearing in the‑ electoral roll. For instance, if a voter is entered as worker or peasant in the electoral roll, it would not ex facie confirm that he fulfils the qualifications as provided by clause (lix) or (xxvii) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Ordinance. Still further, material parti culars going to the root of his qualification may be incorrectly or defectively g entered in the electoral roll. All this cannot deter the Returning Office from looking into the truth of the matter or the candidate from present in the same. The qualifications of a candidate for the worker's seat, a prescribed by sections 3 (1) (lix) and 20 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, would, therefore, have to be satisfied independently of the entries appearing in the electoral rolls ;.and the finality attaching to the electoral rolls as provided by proviso (iii) to sub‑rule (iii) of rule 15 of the Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, would not prevent the Returning Officer from enquiring into the qualifications, for, assuming it did so, to that extent the proviso would be ultra vires. With regard to matters affecting the qualification of a candidate which do not have to be independently proved, perhaps the bar contained in proviso (iii) may be pressed into service, but since we are not dealing with such a case, w would leave its discussion for an appropriate occasion. For the present case, we would submit; that the bar of proviso (iii), to the extent that it prevents the Returning Officer from enquiring into the qualifications of a candidate as are prescribed by the Ordinance, is ultra vires and that the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority in the instant case had the right to enquire into the correctness of the entry as regards the occupa tions professed by the two respondents and, if the entries were defective, to give credence to the correct position.

10. This then brings us to the words "obvious error or defect" appearing in the third proviso to sub‑rule (3) of rule 15 of the Election Rules. These words appear somewhat erroneous in the context. The words do not draw any distinction between an error or defect which is substantial and that which is not. What is stated is that it must be "obvious". An entry in an electoral roll regarding a vote is a one line entry, which contains the serial number of the voter, his name, his parentage, the name of his grandfather, his age, his profession and his address. The words "obvious error or defect" cannot be equated with "error apparent on the face of the record", as the learned counsel for the petitioner suggests. When we allude to a record in a case, w think of many documents, such as the pleadings, various applications filed, the evidence recorded, certain orders passed and the judgment delivered. If there is an error in a judgment or order which falls in the category of an error apparent on the face of the record, a number of documents are before a person from which he can determine the apparent nature of the error. In the case of a one line entry in electoral roll, if an obvious error or defect has to be equated with one which is apparent on the face of G the record, that is to say, the electoral roll, then it would be impossible to decipher any, unless the Returning Officer accepts evidence aliunde. No voter carries full particulars of his name, parentage, age, profession etc., written on his forehead, so that a Returning Officer, by one glance at him, can immediately say that some part of his entry in the electoral roll suffers from an obvious error or defect. Whatever be the position, some evidence would have to be furnished by the candidate to prove the error or defect in the entry. The word "obvious", therefore, in this proviso, cannot be treated as implying something readily perceivable by the eye or the intellect or something plain or apparent from the roll. Basically, what is meant is that which becomes manifest to the Returning Officer by some evidence produced before him and which convinces him that the entry is evidently incorrect or defective. We mention this as the expression "obvious error or defect" is confusing and perhaps the Law Ministry would like to review the wording of this proviso, for a more intelligent rendering of the meaning.

11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Returning Office and the Appellate Authority had the right to go into the question of the qualification of the two respondents in respect of their profession. We do not desire to go into the question as to whether the determination made by them was correct, as the question before them were disputed questions of fact and their decisions ex facie neither appear to be foolish nor preverse. There being no merit in both the petitions, the same are dismissed with costs. M. Y. H. Petitions dismissed.