' SHAHID KARIM, J. --- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 lays a challenge to the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, Shahkot, Nankana Sahib.
2. In essence, the petitioner prays that he be permitted to amend the nomination as also that the nomination papers be accepted after they have been so amended. Precisely, the petitioner seeks to amend the nomination papers to the extent of the relevant Ward No, 1 from which the petitioner intends to contest the elections instead of Ward No, 2, which has been mentioned in the nomination papers.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon rule 14(7) of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 (Rules, 2013) for the proposition that the Returning Officer shall not reject nomination papers on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature and may allow such defect to be remedied forthwith including an error with regard to the name, serial number in the Electoral Rolls or other particulars of the candidate or his proposer or seconder so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in that Electoral Rolls.
4. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on rule 14(7) of the Rules, 2013 is unwarranted and misplaced. Clearly, the Rules, 2013 direct a Returning Officer not to reject the nomination papers on the ground "of any defect which is not of a substantial nature". However the plea raised by the petitioner is certainty one which is of substantial nature. In essence, the petitioner wants a change in the constituency to which he intends to contest the elections. This is a sea-change in the stance of the petitioner and entails an amendment of a substantial nature. The candidates cannot be allowed at their whim to change their constituency at a later stage and once the nomination papers have been duly filed. If this were allowed on the pretext of rule 14(7) of the Rules, 2013, floodgates of such requests would be opened and this would give a lever in the hands of candidates to apply for the change of constituency at any stage. This runs counter to the essence and spirit of the whole body of election Law. It will be tantamount to putting a premium on the misdeed of the erring candidate. This will also involve a subjective assessment of the mental state of a candidate in order to gauge his true intent. Was the mistake made in good faith and clerical in nature or was if actuated by some mischievous design and a contraption? This subjective analysis cannot be left to the discretion of the Returning Officers. Moreover, the words 'including an error with regard to the name, serial number, in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate' occurring in Rule 14(7) of the Rules, 2013 have to be read ejusdem generis with the words 'The Returning Officer shall not reject a" nomination paper on the ground of any defect of substantial nature'. Therefore, the defect has to be of a like nature. The observations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Rana Muhammad Tajammal Hussain v. Rana Shaukat Mahmood (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 277) though in the context of The Representation of the People Act, 1976 are aptly applicable to the case in hand. It was held that:--- "10. Thus it is held that the plea of the learned counsel for appellant that permission be accorded to him to substitute the names of the proposer and seconder, at this stage, seems to be not acceptable. Therefore, opinion expressed in the case of Ishaq Dar v. Election Tribunal (KLR 1998 Civil Cases 374) is not approved for the reasons mentioned herein above because of the fact that this provision of law is mandatory in its nature and would have substantial effect on the" election, for which schedule is to be announced and any nomination paper found invalid cannot be allowed to be validated afterwards, even in exercise of powers either by the Returning Officer or the Election Tribunal or for that matter High Court of this Court, in terms of Section 14(1)(2) of the Act, 1976. A perusal of this provision also indicates that the powers of the Returning Officer have been controlled for not rejecting the nomination papers on any defect which is not of substantial nature, whereas defect in any submitted nomination papers, duly proposed and seconded by a candidate, is of a substantial nature and provisions of Sections 12 and 14 of the Act, 1976 are mandatory in nature as held in Muhammad Abbas v. Returning Officer 1993 MLD 2509, Qaiser lqbal v. Ch. Asad Raza 2002 YLR 2401, As if Khan v. Returning Officer 2003 MLD 230 and Mudassar Qayyum Nahra v. Election Tribunal 2003 MLD 1089. Thus on having approved the principle discussed in these judgments, the earlier judgment in the case of lshaq Dar (ibid) on the point is not approved. "
5. Upon a perusal of the nomination papers, Ward No, 2 is the constituency which has been mentioned as the one from which the petitioner intends to contest the elections. Moreover, the proposer and seconder of the petitioner have also mentioned Ward No, 2 as the ward in which their votes have been entered. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to urge that it was a clerical mistake to mention Ward No, 2 instead of Ward No, 1.
6. In view of the above, this petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.