2004 PLP 1783 (YLR)

(b) Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑Rr. 16 & 18‑‑‑Non‑signing of nomination papers by seconder ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Provisions of R.18 of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, are directory in nature as no penal consequences have been provided therein‑‑ Such omission/defect just being an irregularity can be cured by obtaining signatures of seconder on nomination papers even at the time of scrutiny or before Appellate Authority. Mst. Iqbal Begum v. District Returning Officer/District & Sessions Judge, Okara and another 2001 MLD 1796; Ghulam Nabi v. Khuda Bakhsh and others PLD 1984 Kar. 245 and Writ Petition No.7676 of 2001 rel. Ch. Akbar Ali Shad for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Suleman, Additional A.‑G, for the respondents. Seat of Lady Councilor (reserved seat) fell vacant in Union Council No. 19, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh and for this purpose bye‑election is scheduled to be held on 28‑3‑2004. The petitioner, who is a registered voter of Ward No. 19, filed her nomination papers, fulfilling the requirements of rules 16 and 17 of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2000 on 5‑3‑2004. The Returning Officer (respondent No.2) rejected nomination papers of the petitioner on two fold grounds, firstly, that she herself did not appear at the time of scrutiny and secondly that her nomination papers were not signed by the seconder, in terms of rule 18 of‑the above referred rules vide order dated 12‑3- 2004.

2. It is contended that both the reasons which weighed with the Returning Officer, for rejection of nomination papers of the petitioner are not tenable at law because on the one hand, the presence of the petitioner at the time of scrutiny was not needed whereas on the other hand, defect, if any, in the nomination papers was curable and there being no penal consequence provided in law, those could not have been rejected. It is also submitted that both the respondents failed to apply their conscious judicial mind to the matter before them.

3. Heard. Record perused. Un deniably, presence of the petitioner at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers was not needed and thus, respondent No.2 should not have rejected the nomination papers on this sole ground. As regards, non‑signing of nomination papers by the seconder of the petitioner, it was just an irregularity which could be cured by having signatures on the nomination papers, even at the time of scrutiny. This Court has earlier dealt with a similar situation while dealing with the case of Mst. Iqbal Begum v. District Returning Officer/District & Sessions Judge, Okara and another 2001 MLD 1796 wherein it was held that the defect, if any, in the nomination papers as C claimed in the case in hand, was curable. A similar view was earlier taken by the Sindh High Court in the case of Ghulam Nabi v. Khuda Bakhsh and others PLD 1984 Karachi 245 and by this Court in an unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.7676 of 2001. Above all, provisions of rule 18 of Election Rules, 2000 are directly in nature, as no penal consequence has been envisaged therein.

4. For what has been discussed above, it is obvious that defect pointed out by respondent No.2, was curable and he or the Appellate Authority, should have allowed the petitioner to sign the nomination‑papers by her seconder. I, accordingly, accept this writ petition and declare both the orders dated 12‑3‑2004 and 15‑3‑2004 passed by the respondents, respectively, as illegal, void and of no legal consequence with the result that nomination papers of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No.2 who after having signatures of the seconder of the petitioner, thereon, will allot symbol to the petitioner for her contest in the election schedule to be held on 28‑3‑2004. There will be no order as to costs. S.A.K./M‑171/L Petition accepted.