P L D 1975 Lahore 974 (PLP)

This judgment will dispose of five writ petitions, namely, W. P. 788/1974, W. P. 790/ 1974, W. P. 803/ 1974, W. P. 830/ 1974, and W. P. 831/ 1974 as common questions of law arise in all of them. In all the five cases the petitioners are candidates for the election of members of the Senate by the Registered Graduates. In all these cases the nomination forms filed proposing them as candidates have been rejected by the Returning Officer, without giving them any hearing, on the grounds either that the address of the person stated in the nomination paper is different from that entered in the Register of Registered Graduates or that his name, qualifications and signatures are different from those stated in the said Register, and in one case a further ground has been noticed, namely, that the receipt for the security of Rs. 100 was not attached with the nomination paper.

2. It will be convenient if the provisions of law which bear upon the questions that fall for examination are seen first. The Statute governing the matter is the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 (IX of 1973). Section 2 contains the definitions of the various expressions employed in the Act and mention here may be made of two of them, viz., "prescribed", which means "prescribed by Rules, Statutes or Regulations" (clause xii) and "Registered Graduate", which means‑ "(a) a graduate of the University who has his name entered in the‑register maintained for the purpose ; or (b) a graduate of any University who ordinarily resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the University and has his name entered in the register maintained by the University for the purpose." The next provision relevant for our purpose is section 17, and the following part of it may be usefully reproduced here under :‑ "

17. Registrar.‑The registrar shall be a whole‑time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Syndiacte on such terms and conditions as may determined by it. He shall (a) (b) maintain a Register of Registered Graduates in the prescribed manner ; (c) (d) . : ' Another provision which may be noticed in the present context is clause (xvii) of section 23, which lays down :‑ "23. ‑The Senate.‑(1) The Senate shall consist of (xvii) five Registered Graduates to be elected by all such Graduates from amongst themselves." The last provision relevant for our purpose is section 31, of which the following part bears reproduction "

31. Statutes.‑(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, Statutes may be made to regulate or prescribe all or any of the following matters : (a) (b) .. (c) the. maintenance of the Register of Registered Graduates ; (d) (e) (f ) the conduct of elections for membership of the Authorities of the University and related matters ; (g) to (m). (2) It is thus apparent that the Registrar is under a statutory duty to maintain the Register of Registered Graduates in the prescribed manner, i.e. prescribed by the Rules, Statutes or Regulations. I am informed that no Rules or Regula tions have been framed in this behalf, but that statutes have been framed for the elections of members of the Senate by the Registered Graduates. The learned counsel for the parties have taken me through these Statutes, but it transpired that there is no prescription therein as the manner in which the said Register is to be maintained. Statute 3 of the Statutes which is the provision dealing with the preparation and manner of the Register is merely to the following effect :‑ "3.‑(1) In pursuance of clause (b) of section 17 of the Act, the Registrar shall prepare and maintain the Register of Registered Graduates. (2) Any graduate, who has taken a degree in any Faculty from the University not less than four years before notification under Statute 4, shall on payment of registration fee of Rs. 10 be entitled to have his name entered in the Register of Registered Graduates. (3) Any graduate, who has taken a degree in any Faculty from a University other than the University of the Punjab, not less than four years before notification under Statute 4 and residing permanently within the territorial jurisdiction of the University of the Punjab, shall on payment of registration fee of Rs. 10 be entitled to have his name entered or retained in the Register of Registered Graduates." A perusal of the above provisions shows that clause (1) thereof merely reproduces the provision of section 17(b) of the Act, while clauses (2) and (3) detail the circumstances in which the Registered Graduates shall be entitled to have their names entered in the Register, but nothing is stated as to how the Registrar will maintain it.

3. Learned counsel for the University attempted to argue that the form has been prescribed under Statute 5 which relates to the applications for registration by applicants as Registered Graduates and that the Register has been prepared in accordance with the details. incorporated in the said applica tion. However, this argument was quickly abondoned, because the form .prescribed under Statute 5 shows that the appliqant is required to enter the following particulars therein :‑ (a) Name ; (b) Father's Name ; (c) University Registered No ; (d) Examination passed (e) Year of passing ; (f) Roll No; (g) Name.of College or District from which appeared in the Examination; and (h) Year of admission to the Degree. Whereas a reference to the Final Register of Registered Graduates shows that it does not contain all the above particulars but merely, contains the name, qualifications, address and date of registration of the Registered Graduate. The argument also overlooked the provisions of clause (5) of Statute 5 of the Statutes which lays down‑ "The Registrar shall, without any application for the purpose, enter in the Register, the name of every person whose name is borne on the existing Register of Graduates for life." No direct provision of the Statutes could be referred to in order to indicate the basis on which the Final Register of Registered Graduates was prepared. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners additionally pointed out a large number of mistakes committed in the preparation of the Register and went on to show that it was not properly maintained, and in this connection referred to entry No. 28, made on the very first page relating to S. M. Ikramullah (His name is mentioned but his qualifications are not entered). Other omissions and errors were also pointed out.

4. Whatever be the force in the above argument, it was admitted that it was self‑defeating inasmuch as all the petitioners are anxious to stand as candidates far the election, and in case the Register of Registered Graduates is held to have been framed without lawful authority no election can be held on its basis‑ Moreover, the validity of the Register can be upheld on the ground that it is provided in Statute 17 that the name of the elector. his academic qualifications, titles, if any, and the address of the proposer, the person proposed and the seconder stated in the nomination form shall not be different from those entered in the Register of Registered Graduates. From this provision it would appear, by necessary implication, that the Statutes require that the Register of Registered Graduates shall contain the name, academic qualifications, titles, and the address of the electors i.e the persons whose names are entered in the Register of Registered Graduates. The prescription of the manner in which the Register is to be maintained is thus forthcoming in the Statutes. As the Register of Registered Graduates does contain these particulars, therefore, it cannot be said that it has been framed merely on the ipse dixit of the Registrar, but has been maintained in accor dance with the intendment of Statute 17.

5. The immediate background in which the questions which fall for consideration to these petitions may now be noticed. The Registrar notified the Schedule of Elections for the election of five members of the Senate to be held on 15‑6‑1974 and invited nomination forms and security by 8th May 1974 ; 1 lth May 1974 was fixed as the date for posting the list of the nominees ; while 13th May 1974 was fixed as the date for the scrutiny of the Registrar on 1 lth May 1994. On 13th May 1974 the nomination papers and declaration of validly nominated persons. The date for preparing and posting the list of validly nominated candidates was fixed as 14th May 1974. The nomination forms of the petitioners were filed by the due date and their names were posted in the list of nominees outside the office of the Registrar. The Registrar carried out the scrutiny of papers in his own room, however without calling upon any candidate to appear before him and rejected, inter alia, the nomination fords of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 788/1974, 790/1974. 803/1974 and 830/1974 on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of Statute 17 and the nomination paper of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 831/74 on the grounds both of non‑compliance with the provisions of Statute 17 as well as of Statute 19 viz. the failure to attach the receipt of security deposited with the nomination form.

6. The petitioners have argued that they were entitled to be heard before their nomination forms were rejected and that in any case the defects pointed out in their nomination papers were not of a substantial character, and in view of the fact that the provisions of Statute 17 had been substantially complied with by them, their nomination papers could not have been rejected. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 831 of 1974 took up the further plea that he had duly deposited the security and entered the receipt number in the nomination form itself, besides attaching the receipt itself with it. Consequent ly, the Registrar, before rejecting his nomination form on the ground that he had failed to attach the receipt, of the security deposit, should have given him an opportunity to show that the receipt had been duly attached by him and in any case the security deposit having been made, the failure to attach the receipt was not fatal to the entertain ability of the nomination forms.

7. In support of the contention that the petitioners were entitled to be heard, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad (P L D 1965 S C 90), wherein it was held "Wherever any person or body of persons is empowered to take decisions after ex post facto investigation into facts which would result in consequences affecting the person, property or other right of another person, then in the absence of any express words in the enactment giving such power excluding the application of the principles of natural justice, the Courts of law are inclined generally to imply that the power so given is coupled with a duty to act in accordance with such principles of natural justice as may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of a given case."

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, argued that in the present case no investigation into the facts was called for. The provisions of Statute 17 required that the name, academic qualifications, titles, if any, and the address of the proposer, the person proposer and the seconder stated in the nomination form shall not be different from those entered in the Register of Registered Graduates. All that the Returning Officer had to do was to compare the entries in the nomination forms with the entries contained in the Register of Registered Graduates, and in case they were found to be different, to reject the nomination form, without further ado.

9. There is some force in the above submission of the learned counsal forr1be respondents. Moreover, the requirement of hearing the candidates or their proposers and seconders at the time of scrutiny appears to have been excluded by the terms of the Statute, by necessary intendment. The nomina tion form is required to be forwarded to the Returning Officer by name by post under registered cover (vide Statute 19(2). There is no requirement that it should be presented to the Registrar by the nominee or his propose or seconder. Statute 21, which deals with the scrutiny of nomination forms, does not require the attendance of the candidates, or their proposers or seconders and, consequently, the requirement of hearing is not provided for in connection with the scrutiny of the nomination papers. On the other hand, where the presence of the candidates or their authorised agents is required, the same is specifically provided for in the Statutes. For instance, the presence of candidates or their authorised agents is specifically provided for in Statutes 29 and 30, which deal with the scrutiny of letter of intimation, the ballot papers and counting thereof. In the Statutes, where the presence of the candidate or his agent is visualised, a provision therefor is made in a specific manner, but where their presence is not contemplated, no provision is made in that behalf. It is a well settled rate of construction that whet.‑, the same Statute deals with various stages of a proceedings differently, note is to be taken of this different treatment. Consequently, as hearing of candidates and their agents has been provided for at some stage, by some specific provisions and not so at other stages, the requirement of hearing where it has not been provided for, will be deemed to have been excluded by necessary intendment.

10. It may here be relevant to point out that in other Statutes dealing with elections, where the presence of the candidate or his proposer or secondary is visualised, the matter is provided for specifically. For instance, section 21(3) of the Electoral College Act, 1964 lays down :‑ "Every nomination paper shall be delivered on or before the nomination day by.the candidate or his proposer or seconder to the Returning Officer who shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of the nomination paper." Section 23, which deals with scrutiny, provides in‑subsection (1)‑ "The candidates, their 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 reason able opportunity for examining all nomination papers delivered to him under section 21." and in subsection (2)‑ "The Returning Officer shall, in the presence of the persons attending the scrutiny under subsection (1), examine the nomination paper's and dispose of any objection raised by any such person to any nomi nation." Provisions to the same effect are, contained in the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act, 1.964 (see section 14). The conclusion, therefore,G is that the impugned action of the Returning Officer cannot be de; Jared to be invalid only because the candidates, their proposers or seconders were not heard at the time of scrutiny of the papers. This finding, however, must be read with the qualification that where some disputed question of fact arises before the Returning Officer, such as whether the candidate did or did not attach the receipt for the deposit of security with the nomination form, such' a question cannot be decided ex parte without inquiry. The law is settled that where disputed questions of fact are involved, it becomes the duty of the person charged with the task of taking a decision in the matter to hold an inquiry into them and give a fair opportunity to the person complained against, to establish his contentions. (See Haji Rehan‑ud‑din v. Government of West Pakistan (1). Thus a case of this kind will stand on different footing from the other cases where the question is only of comparison of entries in one form with those existing in the Register, and the sole question is whether the entries made in the nomination form conform with those existing in the Register of Registered Graduates.

11. This brings me to the most vital question in the case, namely, the question whether the provisions of Statute 17 are directory or mandatory, and if a substantial compliance with the said provisions should be deemed to be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Statute 17 or that the said provisions demand a literal compliance with their terms?

12. The question of invalidation of nominations is dealt with in Statute 20, which is in the following terms :‑ "20. (1) If a proposer or a seconder has signed the nomination papers (1) P L D 1958 Lab. 486 of more nominees than the number of vacancies, all nomination papers signed by him shall be declared invalid. (2) If a nominee fails to comply with the provisions of clause (1) of Statute 19, his nomination papers shall be declared invalid." Clause (1) of Statute 1P lays down :‑ "19. (1) Each nominee shall deposit as security a sum of rupees one hundred in cash in the Punjab University Branch of the Habib Bank, Lahore, and shall attach the receipt therefor with the nomination paper." The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners was that a nomina tion form can be invalidated according to the terms of Statute 20, if‑ (a) a proposer or seconder has signed the nomination papers of more nominees than the number of vacancies ; and (b) he has failed to deposit as security a sum of Rs. 100 in cash in the Punjab * University Branch of the Habib Bank, Lahore, and has further failed to attach the receipt therefor with the nomination paper. In so far as the penalty of invalidation of the nomination forms is specifically stated in case the above two conditions are not fulfilled, the said provisions no doubt have mandatory effect. It is further submitted that the maker of the Statutes could easily have added in sub‑clause (2) of Statute 20 that the failure to comply with the provisions of sub‑clause (I) of Article 17 shall also make the nomination form invalid. Since this has not been done and no penalty is specifically laid down for non‑compliance with the' provisions of Statute 17, therefore, the prov1gions of Statute 17 are of directory nature. No doubt, Statute 17 provides that the name, academic qualifications, titles, if any, and the address of the proposer, the person' proposed and the seconder stated in the nomination form shall not be, different from those entered in the Register of Registered Graduates, the world "shat)" however, in this background, is to be construed as only having directory effect. In this connection attention was drawn to maxim, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, "Express enactment shuts the door to further implication" which Craies in his work on Statute Law has illustrated by reference to the following extracts, from the judgment in an English case (at page 259 of his book, 7thEdition) :‑ "If there be any one rule of law clearer that another, it is this, that where Legislature have expressly prescribed one or more particular modes of dealing with property, such expression always excludes any other mode; except law specifically authorised." On the above basis it is submitted that the express mention in Statute 20 that the failure to comply with its provisions as well as the provisions of clause (I) of Statute 19 will invalidate the nomination form, shuts out by implication interpretation that the non‑compliance with the *visions of other Statutes shall also entail the same penalty.

13. As for the contention that the use of the word "shall" in Statute 17 implies that its provisions have mandatory effect, it is now well settled that the use of the word "shall" in a provision' does not necessarily require that the said provision is to tie regarded as having a mandatory effect. A large number of decisions exist on this question, but it is not necessary to advert to them because two recent pronouncements of this Court, in connection with the nature of such provisions so far as election laws are concerned, clarify the matter fully. In Muhammad Akhtar v. Salahuddtn (P L D 1971 Lab. 737), it was held that it is well settled that as a general rule the statutory provisions of election laws are to be regarded as directory, unless the Legislature itself has prescribed a penal consequence for their violation. In that case a notification under section 11 of the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 had prescribed a particular date for filing of nomination papers. The, nomination papers were filed‑one day ahead of the prescribed date. It was held that there had been no violation of any mandatory provisions of the election laws and Rules, because the provisions regarding the date on which the nomination papers were to be filed were of a directory nature. The same, view was taken in the case of Amirzada Ki7an, M. N. A. v. Chief Election, Commissioner etc. (P L D 1974 S C 236). The said case related to the acceptance of the nomina tion papers, by the Chief Election Commissioner, of Ch. Fazal Elahi for the office of the President of Pakistan. Rule 3 of the relevant Rules provided : ‑. "

3. Nomination paper.‑(1) The nomination paper by which a proposal can be made _under paragraph 3 shall be in Form I. (21 Every nomination paper shall‑be accompanied by an attested copy of the extract from the electoral roll in which the person nominated is enrolled as a voter." (Underlining* is mine). The plea taken was that the nomination paper of Ch. Fazal Elahi was not accompanied by an attested copy of the extract from the electoral roll and, therefore, his nomination paper was liable to be rejected. A Division Bench of this Court repelled the plea as follows "for our part observe that the objections raised are not of a substantial nature, when basically it has not been urged either in the petition or before us that respondent No‑ 3 was in fact not a voter or that his name did not exist in the list of voters." In view of these recent pronouncements by this Court, I consider that the provisions of Statute 17 must be held to be of a directory and not a mandatory nature.

14. The fact is that slight mistakes in the nomination paper, which do not have the effect of making the identity of the candidate doubtful, are normally ignored. In English Law no misnomer or inaccurate description of any person or place named in a nomination paper affects the full operation of the nomination paper where the description of the person or place is such as to be commonly understood. Thus it has been held that a mere miss‑spelling of a surname, not calculated to mislead electors, does not give good ground for objection. It has also been held that the use of an abbreviation which everybody understands instead of setting out the forename in full, such as "Wim" for "William," is permissible (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 14, para.

17. In this paragraph of Halsbury, reference is also made to a case where an incorrect description of the true place of residence was held not to invalidate the nomination paper, if the description were such as to be commonly understood. It has also been observed in this paragraph that the description of a candidate in a nomination form must be sufficient to establish his identity. A case cited in this paragraph showed that if the description is unduly long, the returning officer after consultation (if possible) with the candidate or his election agent, proposer or seconder could shorten it or substitute another, Edward v. Jackson & Dingle ((1946) 2 All E R 129).

15. The law in India is also to the same effect. It was held in A I R 1944 Cal. 395 that a nomination paper should not be rejected merely because the electoral numbers of the proposer or seconder are not correctly given or do not tally with the numbers giver in the electoral roll. The identity of the person and not a mere error in giving his electoral number is the factor which the returning officer has to consider in deciding whether a paper should be rejected. In another case it was held that the nomination form is to be filled in order to identify the candidate and, therefore, if the identity of the candi date is once established any other defect not affecting. the identity would be clerical or technical defect and not substantial (A I R 1964 Bom. 137). It has also been held that the election law does not require that the description of the candidate in the nomination paper must literally agree with the description in the electoral roll (See Afzal Mahmood Law of Elections, page 19). At page 20 of this Book reference is made to cases wherein it has been held that discrepancies in particulars of the nomination paper and the electoral roll are not material if there is no doubt as to the identity of the candi date.

16. From the foregiong discussion, it is apparent that the only question of substance in considering whether the provisions of Statute 17 have been complied with or not is to ascertain whether the identity of the candidate has been sufficiently disclosed in the nomination form. Any other error that may G be found in the nomination form, not ffecting this basic question, will be no more than an unsubstantial defect and cannot result in the invalidation of the form Keeping these principles in view, I now proceed to determine the merits of each writ petition. W. P. 788/ 1974 (Dr. Aijaz Hussain Qureshi v. The Registrar, University of the Punjab)

17. In this case the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that the address of the nominee is different from that entered in the Register of Registered Graduates. The address in the nomination form is given as under : "Care of Urdu Digest Publications, 21‑Acre Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore." In the Register of Registered Graduates the address of the nominated person is entered as follows :‑ "Care of Urdu Digest Publications, 10‑21 Acre Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore." Thus the only error found in the nomination form is that the‑figure "10" before "21" has been omitted.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the correct address of the petitioner was 19‑21 Acre Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore, and this is the address that he had mentioned in his application form while applying for enrolment as a Registered Graduate and that the Register did not accurately reproduce the address from the enrolment form. It was sub nitted that the error existing in the nomination form was another example showing that the Registrar had not maintained the Register of Registered Graduates correctly. He argued that in case the petitioner had mentioned his address as 10.21 Acre Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore, this would have amounted to repeating the mistake committed by the Registrar and, therefore, he considered that the safest course was to omit the incorrect figure of "10", mentioned in the Register. It was further stated that the address as mentioned in his nomina tion paper was sufficient to identify him because the Urdu Digest Publications was well known in the area, viz. 21‑Acre Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore, and there was no difficulty in identifying him from the address given in the nomi nation form.

19. It is not necessary to say anything with‑ regard to the first part of the submission. of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice is to say that the latter part of it has force, The address given in the nomination form, coupled with the correct entry of his name, was sufficient to identify the petitioner and in the circumstances, the provisions of Statute 17 had been substantially complied with. Consequently, the petitioner's nomination form was not liable to rejection. The rejection of the nomination form by the Registrar is accordingly declared to be without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. The petitioner is entitled to contest the election on the basis of his nomination form, and it is directed that his name shall be entered in the list of validly nominated candidates, as required by law. W. P. 790/1974 (Syed Sharif Hussain Bukhari v. Mr. Iqbal Hussain, Registrar, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another

20. Two nomination forms were submitted for nomination of the petitioner as a candidate. The petitioner before me has challenged the rejection of his second nomination form, in which his name and academic qualifications were entered as follows "Syed ShVf Hussain, LL. B. (Pb)." While appending his signatures in token of his consent to stand for election, the petitioner has signed his name as follows :‑ "Sharif Hussain Bokhari." 1n the Register ef Registered Graduates the particulars of the petitioner are mentioned as follows "Syed Sharif Hussain, LL. B." The nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected because in the details of his academic qualifications he has mentioned the word "Punjab" after "LL. B." while appending his signatures he has signed his name as "Sharif Hussain Bukhari" and not merely as "Sharif Hussain."

21. The discrepancy in the details of qualifications, namely, the mention of the word "Punjab" after "L. L B." is not a substantial defect. Consequ ently, the provisions of Statute 17 were substantially complied with in the present case.

22. Coming to the discrepancy in the signatures, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Statute 17 provides that the person proposed shall sign the nomination form as a token of his consent to stand for election, but that in the said provision no mention was made to the effect that the signa tures of the candidate must not be different from the name as entered in the Register. Secondly, it was submitted that the defect about the addition of 'the word "Bokhari", alongwith the signatures of the candidate was not a fatal defect. The reason being that it is enough that there should be no ambiguity about the fact that the person proposed has consented to stand for election, and the signatures need not necessary conform literally with the name of the candidate, as entered in the Register. I find force in this submission. In the context of all the other entries existing in the nomination form there could be no doubt that the person appending his signatures in token of his consent to stand for election was the person nominated by the elector. Consequently, 'the rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner by the Registrar is declared to be without lawful authority, and respondent No. 1 is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of validly nominated candi dates. W. P. 803/1974 (Miss Tasnim Qadir (41ian) Instructor N. I. P. A. v. University of the Punjab wut another).

23. The entry of the petitioner in the Register of Registered Graduates is as follows :‑ "Tasnim Qadir, M. So., In3tructor N.

1. P. A., 190‑School Corner, Upper Mall, Lahore" The name, academic qualifications and the address of the petitioner, as entered ‑in the nomination paper are as under :‑ "(Miss) Tasnim Qadir (Mian), B. A. B. Ed, (Punjab), M. A. (Punjab), M. Sc. (Smith U. S. A.), DAS. (Smith U.S.A.).‑ The address given is Instructor NIPA, 190, Stock Corner, Lahore. While rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner, the Returning Officer observed that the name and academic qualifications and address of the person nominated, stated in the nomination form, are different from those entered in the Register of Registered Graduates and that the, signature of the proposer, given in the nomination form, is also different from her name entered in the Register of Registered Graduates.

24. The discrepancies about name are indicated by circle marks made around and additional entries by the Returning Officer on the original nomination form. These show that the petitioner had added the word "Mian" after her name. She had also added three further academic qualifica tions which are not mentioned in the Register, namely B. A., M. A. (Punjab) and DAS (Smith U. S. A), and there is also a mistake with regard to the address namely, "Scotch Corner" has been written as "Scotch Cornor." An error in the signature of the rrnnoser has also been observed in that the proposer whose name is "Nasim Jehan" has been mis‑spelled as "Jehan".

25. There is no doubt that an additional title and some additional .qualifications have been mentioned alongwith the name of the candidate in the nomination form, but there is no mistake in her name and the function that she is performing namely, that of Instructor NIPA. In these circum stances, the additions made alongwith the name and the qualification‑s do not affect the validity of the form. It may further be mentioned that the word "Mian" was written in bracket, and t )is could have been even otherwise ignored. Moreover, if the description is unduly long, the Returning Officer may shorten it or substitute it (See Edwards v. Jack‑on and Dingle (cited above). Consequently. the additional qualifications could have been, omitted by him, while including the petitioner's name in the list of validly nominated candidates. I am conscious of the fact that according to Statute 23(2) the ballot paper to be sent to the electors must contain the name of candidate with his academic qualifications, titles and address as shown in tie nomination paper. But by parity of reasoning the provisions of Statute 23(2) are also to be regarded as directory and the additional entries made alongwith the name of the candidate, can be excised, as this would not amount to violation of the provisions of Statute 23(2), provided always that the name retained on the ballot paper is sufficient to identify the candidate beyond any doubt.

26. Coming to the defect of the address, this matter was more embar rassing to the learned counsel for the University than to the petitioner, because the address given to the Register of Registered Graduates is "190, School Corner" although no such place exists on the Upper Mall. Lahore. If the peti tioner had mechanically repeated the address, that would have caused confusion and could result in misleading the electors the error in the address column didt not vitiate the ballot paper. Similarly, the miss‑spelling of the word "Jahan' by the proposer as "Jehan" was also a trival defect. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the nomination form of the petitioner could not be rejected as substantial compliance wirh the provisions of Statute 17 had been made and consequently, the order of the Registrar rejecting the nomina tion form is declared to be without lawful authority, and the petitioner's name shall be entered in the list of validly nominated candidates, after omitting the qualifications mentioned in the nomination form except that of "M. Sc." W, P. 830/1974 (Abdul Hamid Sarshar v. Returning Officer)

27. In this case the petitioner has submitted two forms: one written in hand and the other was type‑written. Both forms contained the following entries in the columns relating to full name of person nominated with his academic qualifications and titles, if any :‑ "Abdul Hamid Sershar, M. A. (Urdu, Persian and Punjabi). M. O. L.. Honours in (Urdu, Persian and Punjabi)." The entry in the Register of Registered Graduates about this person is as follows "Abdul Hamid Sarshar, M. A., M. O. L." The form was rejected on the ground that the name and academic qualifications of the parson proposed, stated in the nomination form were different from those entered in the Register of Registered Graduates. So far as the error of name is concerned, there is only a slight spelling error i e. in the nomination form the name is written "Sershar" while in the Register it is written "Sarshar". So far as the difference of qualifications is concerned, it is as follows Against the qualification M. A., "Urdu, Persian and Punjabi" are added, and after M. O. L., "Honours in (Urdu, Persian and Punjabi)" are added. For the reasons given by me while disposing of Writ Petition No. 803/74, the error in the name as well as the additions regarding qualifications are not found to be fatal. The nomination paper could not be rejected on the unsubstantial defects on which it has been found to be invalid. The order of the Registrar, rejecting the form is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority, and he is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of validly nominated candidates. He is permitted to delete the words "Urdu, Persian and Punjabi" against M. A. and the words "Honours in Urdu, Persian and Punjabi" after the words M. O. L., while printing his name in the ballot paper. W. P. 831/1974 (Doctor Munawar Hayat v. The Registrar, University of Punjab, Lahore and another)

29. The nomination form of the petitioner was rejected by the Registrar on three grounds (a) that the full name, academic qualifications and designation of the person nominated, stated in the nomination form, are different from those entered in the Register of Registered Graduates ; (b) that the signature of the proposer was different from his name entered in the Register of Registered Graduates ; and (c) that the receipt for the deposit of security of Rs. 100 has not been attached with the nomination form.

30. The entry in the nomination form is as follows "Professor Dr. Munawar Hayat, M. B., B. S., F. R. C. P., Professor of Naurology, K. E. Medical College, Lahore. 5‑B, G. O. R. II, Near Shadman, Lahore." ‑ The Entry in the Register is as follows :‑ , ,‑ "Munawar Hayat, Esq., M. B., B. S., 5‑B, G. O. R. III, Shadman, Lahore." So far as the proposer is concerned, his name is Ghulam Nabi Bajwa, but while proposing the petitioner as a candidate, be has only appended his signatures in abbreviated form and below there is a stamp showing the signa tures to be that of Dr. G. N. Bajwa. However, in the Register, his name is entered as "Ghulam Nabi Bajwa." The receipt showing deposit of security has not been attached, but in the nomination form reference is made to receipt No. 40143. 31. 1 have held above that the provisions of Statute 19 with regard to the deposit of security are mandatory and, therefore, if indeed the petitioner did not attach the security receipt with his nomination paper, the paper was liable to be rejected. However, the petitioner took up the position that he had, in fact, depo3ited a sum of Rs. 100 as security in the Habib Bank University Branch, Lahore and had attached the receipt with his nomination form. This fact was duly entered in the Income Register of the University. It was further submitted that if the receipt was missing, the fact of deposit of security could be verified from the Income Register of the University and from the Bank record.

32. The Registrar filed an affidavit in this Court to the effect that he had received the nomination papers including that of the petitioner and no receipt showing the deposit, as required in Statute 19 was attached with the nomina tion form. The paper was accordingly rejected, inter alla, for non‑compliance with the requirement of Statute 19(l).

33. If the position as taken in the affidavit of the respondent is correct,, then the nomination paper of the petitioner was rightly rejected, but the, question that fell for decision was one of fact, about which there was a dispute. According to the petitioner he had attached the receipt showing the deposit of the security and the nomination form itself showed that a receipt. bearing No. 40143 was obtained in that behalf, but the Registrar states that this receipt was not attached with the form. Thus a disputed question of fact arose on which an inquiry, howsoever summary, was necessary. It may be observed that after a fair inquiry in which the petitioner is to be associated, rte is found that the petitioner has been unable to establish the factum of having attached the deposit receipt with the form, his form would be liable to rejection, in view of the fact that the failure to attach the receipt with the form amounts to the violation of a mandatory provision. I am conscious of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner did submit that the provisions regarding the deposit of security of Rs. 100 were mandatory, but the further provisions about the attachment of the receipt to the nomination paper were directory, and relied upon P L D 1965 Dacca 231 and A I R 1964 Bom. 107, in this behalf. These decisions, however, are not of much assistance in the face of the provisions of sub‑clause (2) of Statute 20 that if a nominee fails to comply with the provisions of clause (1) of Statute 19, his p per shall be declared invalid. From the wording of sub‑clause (2) of Statute 20 it is manifest that all the provisions of clause (1) of Statute 19 must be complied with and not merely some parts of them.

34. So far as the other two grounds on which the nomination form of the petitioner was rejected are concerned, suffice it to say that the said aspects of the matter can be gone into only if the petitioner is able to establish that he had attached the receipt for the deposit of security before the Registrar. In case he is able to do so, the Registrar is directed to address himself to the other aspects, in the light of the principles laid down in this judgment. The result is that this writ petition shall be accepted to the extent that the order of the Registrar dated 13‑5‑1974, rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is declared to be without lawful authority, and the case is remitted to him for holding an inquiry into the question whether the petitioner had or had not attached the receipt of the security dep3sit with the nomination form. In this inquiry the petitioner shall be associated. In view of the short time available before the elections commence, the inquiry should be made on 27‑5‑1974 and completed, if possible, on the same day. The Registrar shall then pass orders in accordance with law.

35. The over‑all conclusion is that these Writ Petitions succeed to the extent indicated above. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. S. A. H. Order accordingly.