' This petition for leave to appeal is meant to challenge the order passed by a learned. Single Judge of the High Court on 1-7-1982 in disallowing a writ petition moved by the petitioner to impugn the order of Election Tribunal, Muzaffarabad dated 4-11-1981, whereby the election of the Petitioner as Member of the Local Council M'abad was held to be illegal. The election of the petitioner was quashed on two grounds ; namely, (I) that the name of the petitioner was not entered in the Electoral Rolls prepared for Ward No, 2 in Muzaffarabad town, and (ii) that he was a depot holder on the relevant date and as such was not qualified to contest the election.
2. I have heard Raja Muhammad Hanif, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a restricted jurisdiction and an appeal to invoke it will not succeed where a special Tribunal, like the Election Tribunal, has functioned within the spirit and the intention of the statute that created it and while so functioning it made a real and honest endeavor to judge facts on the merits of the evidence and to apply the law to them. A finding of fact thus arrived at however erroneous will not be scrutinised or reviewed by this Court and even if an error of law be committed by the Tribunal that will not be considered to be a sufficient ground for interference unless the law so misunderstood or misapplied raises some general question of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of the Tribunal or the decision of the case.
3. Here in this case the name of the petitioner does not appear in the Electoral Rolls published on 21-6-1979. In these rolls against serial No, 75 instead of. Tahir Mahmood Mohsin son of Faqir Muhammad (petitioner) the name of one Master Roshan Din son of Faqir Muhammad appears. T substitute the name of Tahir Mahmood Mohsin (petitioner) instead of Maste Rosban Din against this serial number, I believe, was an illegal act of the Returning Officer. Such correction cannot be termed as clerical mistake. The expression "Clerical mistake" cannot be stretched to mean inclusion of a new name instead of old one. No record has been placed before me, the High Court or before the Tribunal to justify that actually the name of Maste Roshan Din was published through mistake at the time of publishing of the rolls. The finding of the Tribunal that in the Electoral Rolls, which have been prepared for the election in question, the name of the petitioner did not appear against serial No, 757 was rightly held by the High Court to be unassailable by way of a writ petition.
Writs are extraordinary remedies and only available when there is apparent illegality in an order passed by an authority subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the order of the Election Tribunal and that of the High Court is quite just and I do not find any defect in the order calling for interference.
4. Raja Muhammad Hanif contended that by virtue of explanation III to section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, which reads : "Explanation III-In subsection (x) clause (d) 'goods' does not include agricultural produce or commodity grown or produced by him or such goods as he is, under any directive of Government or any law for the time being in force, under a duty or obligation to supply."
Even assuming the petitioner to be a depot holder he cannot be said to be disqualified to contest the election. I would refrain to express myself on the merits of this argument because the very fact that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the Electoral Rolls was rightly taken by the Courts below a sufficient factor to disqualify him to fight the election.
For the view I have taken in the matter this petition for leave to appeals fails.
Petition for leave to .