' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed to assail the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25-1-2008 in Writ Petition No,12143/2007. By the aforesaid judgment the High Court has set aside the order dated 8-12-2007 passed by the Election Tribunal whereby it had allowed inclusion of the name of the petition in the list of validly nominated candidates by substituting it in place of the name of Peter Gill in the Priority List of party.
2. Pursuant to the requirements of Article 8-F of the General Election Order, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order") and section 47-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") the Political Parties are required to file separate list of candidates in order of priority for seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. In compliance of the above provisions respondent No,3 submitted separate list of candidates in order of priority for the reserved seats of non-Muslims before the due date which was 26-11-2007. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the said list. On 1-12-2007 the name of the petitioner was sought to be included in the said list. Such request was rejected by the Provincial Election Commissioner, Punjab Returning Officer for reserved seats in Punjab Provincial Assembly vide order dated 3-12-2007. Such order was assailed before the Election Tribunal who vide order dated 8-12-2007 set aside the same and directed that the name of the petitioner be included in the list of validily nominated candidates by substituting it with the name of Peter Gill.
3. Respondent No,4 feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Election Tribunal which was assailed the same by way of Writ Petition No,12113/2007 which was disposed of by means of impugned order dated 25-1-2008, as stated above, setting aside the order dated 8-12-2007 of the Election Tribunal and declaring the same to be without lawful authority.
4. Petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 25-1-2008 had assailed the same by way of the petition for leave to appeal.
5. We have heard arguments of Mr. Nazeer Ahmad Ghazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abid Saqi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,4.
6. Mr. Nazeer Ahmad Ghazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to argue that it was not a case of addition or substitution of the name of the candidate with the name of another candidate but it was correction of name which had been wrongly and inadvertently mentioned in the separate list of candidates in order of priority for reserved seats of non-Muslims. Elaborating his argument he submitted that actually Peter Gill, father of the petitioner was the proposer of the petitioner but inadvertently his name appeared as candidate and when this discrepancy came to the notice of respondent No,3 an application was moved for rectification thereof which request initially was rejected by the Returning Officer but was subsequently allowed by the Tribunal.
7: This contention in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, to say the least, is absolutely frivolous and baseless. As a matter of fact it was Peter Gill who had applied to the concerned Political Party for ticket/inclusion of his name in the separate list of candidates for reserved seats meant for non-Muslims. At the same time his son, the petitioner had also applied for a ticket/inclusion of his name. From the facts it transpires that the petitioner had applied for a ticket subject to withdrawal or setting aside the condition of Graduation for contesting National and Provincial Assemblies and in case was not withdrawn or set aside resulting in disqualification of Peter Gill, then he (petitioner) would replace him as a candidate being a Graduate. The fact that both the petitioner and his father had applied for a ticket for a minority seat in Punjab Provincial Assembly is borne out from their applications which have been annexed in the paper book appears at pages 40 and 48. Till the date fixed for filing of nomination papers i,e, 26-11-2007 the name of petitioner did not appear in the list of the candidates filed in pursuance of Article 8-F of the Order and section 47-A of the Act. After expiry of this date no changes/addition or alteration could have been made in the aforesaid list of candidates and therefore his application dated 1-12- 2007, which he claimed to be an application for correction of the name as the name of his father Peter Gill was wrongly and inadvertently mentioned in the list instead of his name, was in effect an application for addition/substitution of his name in place of the name of Peter Gill was not maintainable and the Returning Officer rightly rejected the same. The Election Tribunal did not take into consideration the material facts for deciding the issue involved and fell in error in holding that the above was a case of correction/rectification and not a case of substitution/ inclusion of the name of the petitioner. The High Court rightly set aside the order of the Election Tribunal holding that it was a case of substitution/addition of the name in the separate list of candidates for reserved seats for non-Muslim and the same could not have been done after 26-11-2007.
8. For the foregoing facts, reasons and discussion this petition is found to be without any merit and substance which is accordingly dismissed. Leave Refused.