Through this judgment, this Constitutional petition as also following petitions:-
1. Writ Petition No. 29442 of 2015.
2. Writ Petition No. 29533 of 2015.
3. Writ Petition No. 29534 of 2015.
4. Writ Petition No. 29576 of 2015.
5. Writ Petition No. 29619 of 2015.
6. Writ Petition No. 29638 of 2015.
7. Writ Petition No. 29678 of 2015.
8. Writ Petition No. 29737 of 2015.
Are to be disposed of together, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these matters.
2. In all the petitions, nomination papers of all the duly qualified persons/candidates were rejected only on the ground that, their proposers or seconders, were not the voters of the relevant Wards and appeals filed there-against were also dismissed.
3. Section 27 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, which provides qualifications and disqualifications for candidates and elected members, does not contain any embargo or his proposal or secondment as to the candidature by the persons, who must be the voters of the relevant "ward".
4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 144 of the Act, Governor of the Punjab was pleased to make Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013. Such rules provide minute details for the conduct of elections in Chapter-IV thereof. Rule 12(2) of such Rules provides that any voter of "a Union Council or Ward" may propose or second the name of any duly qualified person to be a candidate for an election of a member or as the case may be, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of a Union Council.
5. The word "or" figuring in between "Union Council" and "Ward" is of much significance. In view of the principles of interpretation, word "or" is commonly and ordinarily used in disjunctive sense.
Mr. S.M. Zafar, in Understanding Statutes, Canons of Construction, while giving broad principles of interpretation of word "or" has noted that the same is used in a Statute in disjunctive sense indicating an alternative, presenting a choice of either. Further, it is noted that if this disjunctive conjunction "or" is used, the various members of the sentence are to be taken separately.
Almost same view has been expressed in cases of Muhammad Arif and others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot and others (2011 SCM R 1591), Salehon and others vs. The State (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 267) and Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by Lrs vs. Sita Ram (2002 AIR (SC) 433)
6. Applying such principle of interpretation on the provisions of Rule 12(2) of the Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, the word "Union Council" and "Ward" are used separately providing two different bodies or entities for proposers and seconders of any duly qualified person as to his candidature for his election to the office of member or as the case may be, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of a Union Council.
7. It is nobody's case in all the matters, under consideration, that proposers or seconders are not from the relevant "Union Council". The candidature of the duly qualified persons was rejected on the sole ground that their proposers or seconders were not the voters of the relevant "Ward".
8. Firstly, the Returning Officers and then the appellate authorities also fell in error while not appreciating the real spirit and legislative intent in providing at least two entities in which either of any one can be adopted to adjudge the qualification of proposer or seconder to hold such valid position on showing their inclusion as voters in either the Union Council or the Ward and, thus, rejection of nomination papers of the petitioners is an act, which is not supported by any law and, therefore, is not sustainable.
9. In this view of the matter, all the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned orders rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners and dismissal of their appeals are set-aside, and the nomination papers, respectively filed by the petitioners in concerned Constituencies, stand accepted.