Through instant writ petition, the petitioner has called into question the legality and validity of order dated 17.10.2016 passed by Returning Officer/respondent No.2 and order dated 21.10.2016 passed by Appellate Authority/respondent No.1.
2. Precisely , the facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted nomination papers for Special Seat of Women General Councillor in U.C. No.44, Tiku Rampura Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar before respondent No.2 which were rejected on the ground that proposer of the petitioner has already proposed the woman candidate in same category and the nomination papers of the petitioner were received later on at Sr.
No.21 at about 01.15 p.m. vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1/Appellate Authority which also met with the same fate and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.10.2016. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Returning Officer of U.C. No.44 as well as impugn ed order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority of Tehsil Bahawalnagar are against Sub-rule 8 of Rule 12 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013. Further contends that under Sub-rule 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules ibid, the Returning Officer has the power to rectify the defect forthwith.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders passed by the Returning Officer as well as Appellate Authority by contending that provisions of Sub-rule 8 of Rule 12 of the Rules ibid are mandatory in nature and has been applied by the Returning Of ficer correctly .
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected by the Returning Officer while invoking the provisions of Sub-rule 8 of Rule 12 of the Rules ibid, therefore, it will be advantageous to reproduce the said rule which is as under:- "(8) If any voter subscribes as a proposer or a seconder to more than one nomination papers in the same category of seats, all such nomination papers, except the one received first by the Returning Officer , shall be void."
7. In this case, nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that her proposer has already proposed woman candidate in same category. In Sub-rule 8 of Rule 12 of the Rules ibid the word 'void' is not without any significance. The word 'void' has not been defined in Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 and Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, therefore, I would like to take the meaning of word 'void' from the Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary (7 Edition) as under:- "Void:- noun: a large empty space, adjective: complete lacking, verb: to state officially that is no longer valid.
In Chambers 21 Century Dictionary , its meaning is as under:- "Void: Not valid or legally binding"
In Black' s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations (Sixth Edition), it reads as under:- "Void: Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended. Hardison v. Gledhill, 72 Ga.App. 432, 33 S.E.2d 921, 924. An instrument or transaction which is wholly ineffective, inoperative, and incapable of ratification and which thus has no force or effect so that nothing can cure it. In re Oliver, Bkrtcy. Minn., 38 B.R. 245, 248."
8. The word 'void' came under discussion in recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan titled as "Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- "Term "void" signifies something absolutely null, incapable of ratification or confirmation and, thus, having no legal effect whatsoever". Similarly , the word void ab initio? has been defined as "null from the beginning".
9. It is established from the record that nomination papers of the petitioner have been received by the Returning Officer after receiving the nomination papers of Mst. Jeshan Bibi wife of Muhammad Iqbal at Sr. No.20 at about 1:10 p.m. whereas nomination papers of the petitioner have been received later on at Sr. No.21 at about 1:15 p.m, therefore, keeping in view the fact that the proposer of the petitioner has already proposed the woman candidate in same category , nomination papers of the petitioner will be deemed to be invalid and will be deemed to have not been filed. The nomination papers of the petitioner were incapable to rectification and will be deemed to be null and void from the beginning.
10. The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the defect in the nomination papers could be remedied forthwith by the Returning Officer has been completely answered by a Full Bench of this Court in case titled as "Barkhurdar v. Appellate Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge and 3 others" (PLD 2016 Lahore 101). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- "27. Defect of a substantial nature can also be gauged from the language of Rule 14(7) and the kinds of errors mentioned therein. The relevant part of which states: "....including an error with regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate or his proposed or seconder so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls." Applying the established interpretative canon of noscitur a sociis i.e., associated words bear on one another?s meaning, the nature of errors e.g. name and serial number , etc. are clerical and cosmetic. Similarly , applying the interpretative canon of ejusdem generis i.e., where general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or class specifically mentioned, to explain "or other particulars" in Rule 14(7), the same cannot go beyond the kind of errors which precede it, which as explained above as merely procedural. Even otherwise, these errors or defects do not have any statutor y underpinning like Rules 12(2) and 14(3)(b) of the Rules, which require a proposer and a seconder to be from the same constituency ."
11. The defect in the nomination papers of the petitioner is substantial in nature and does not allow the Returning Officer to rectify the same.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the Returning Of ficer as well as Appellate Authority .
13. Sequel to the above, this writ petition being devoid of any force is dismissed by upholding the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 passed by Returning Officer/respondent No.2 and order dated 21.10.2016 passed byth st