' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-The petitioner and respondent No, 2 have earlier been fighting elections. This time they are seeking election to the Lahore Municipal Corporation. Respondent No, 2's name was entered as Muhammad Imtiaz Ali Sheikh son of Muhammad Ashraf in the Electoral Roll. On his application for correction of his name to Muhammad Iftikhar Ali Sheikh son of Muhammad Sharif, the Registration Officer ordered accordingly on 30-8-1983. He filed nomination papers on 31-8-1983. At the time of scrutiny the petitioner raised the objections that the respondent and his father's name did not appear on the electoral roll and that he was an office bearer of a political party. The Returning Officer found that there was an error of misprint in the electoral roll and that the respondent was not the office bearer of a political party. Hence, he accepted the nomination papers of the respondent for contesting the ensuing election. This is vide order dated 8-9.1983. It is challenged through this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 18 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as amended by the Punjab Ordinance, 1983 and relied upon the second proviso which is to the following effect :- "Provided further that the corrections, if any, made in respect of any electoral roll at any time after the voters of the electoral unit have been called upon to elect its member shall not be taken into consideration till such member has been elected."
' The learned counsel submitted that the corrections made in respect of an electoral roll at any time after the voters of that electoral unit have been called upon to elect its member, shall not be taken into consideration till such member has been elected. He has contended that since the correction sought by the respondent and made by the Registration Officer on 30-8-1983 was subsequent to the date when the voters were called upon to elect which was 27-8-1983, the correction made cannot be taken into consideration for the present elections scheduled for 28-9- 1983.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No, 2 has submitted that the answering respondent has filed the application for correction in January, 1983. In support thereof the petitioner has filed a certificate of A.R.O. (Annexure R/1). Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the authorities do not decide the application until after a date fixed, again by authorities, a citizen cannot be made to suffer or lose his right. He referred to Mian lrshad Ali v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Islamabad and 13 others (1) and read from page 11 that "the wrongful act of a public functionary will not wrong a party because it is the duty of the public functionary or the tribunal to rectify the wrongful act." He submitted that entry No, 306 in the electoral roll undeniably refers to the answering respondent though there is mistake in the name of the respondent and the father but the name of grandfather and other particulars are quite correct and the mistake is on account of spellings. The learned counsel for the respondent then referred to Ch. Muhammnd Hussain v. Election Tribunal and another (2) and submitted that under analogous provisions a person whose name was corrected and brought on the electoral roll after the constituency had been called upon to elect and who had successfully contested the ensuing election was held to have been validly elected because a distinction was drawn between the position of a voter and a candidate. A candidate can only be ousted from the arena if he is disqualified per se.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that certificate 'R/1' relied upon for having put in an application for correction in January, 1983 is supurious. Intrinsic evidence shows that it is so because it says that the application was put in January, 1983 as per N tification dated 28-3-1983.
It is submitted that how on earth an application can be filed in January, 1983 in pursuance of a Notification which is yet to be issued two months later.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Certificate Annexure R/1 was not relied upon before the Returning Officer. In the
(1) PLD 1975 Lab, 7 (2) 1982 SCMR. 307 ' circumstances of the case, we have to proceed on the basis of undisputed facts and legal consequences thereof. These are that on the motion of respondent No, 2, correction was made in the entry No, 306 of the electoral roll on 30-8-1983 after the voters of the electoral unit had been called upon on 27-8-1983 to elect. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the second proviso to section 18 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as amended by the Punjab Ordinance XV of 1983 the correction cannot be taken into consideration until after the election. The case cf respondent No, 2 is that notwithstanding the proviso to Section 18, the following provision in Section 20 which deals with the qualification of a candidate will govern the case and the answering respondent satisfying the requirements of the later provision was rightly held entitled to contest the election. Distinction has to be drawn between the rights of a candidate and a voter. The latter may be hit by the proviso but not the former for whom there is the specific provision.
' The two statutory provisions brought about by the amendment vide Punjab Ordinance XV of 1983 may be reproduced below :- "18. The electoral rolls prepared for election of members of Provincial Assembly as amended from time to time, adjusted and arranged for a local council, shall be the electoral rolls for election to the local council : ' Provided that an electoral roll shall not be invalid by reason of any erroneous description in the electoral roll of any person enrolled or registered thereon or of omission of the name of any person entitled to be so enrolled or registered or of inclusion of the name of any person not so entitled : ' Provided further that the corrections, if any, made in respect of any electoral roll at any time after the voters of the electoral unit have been called upon to elect its member shall not be taken into consideration till such member has been elected."
"20. A person shall be qualified to be elected as, and to be, a member of an electoral unit of a local council if-
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan ;
(b) he has attained the age of twenty-five years on the last day fixed for the filing of nomination papers ; and
(c) his name for the time being, appears on the electoral roll of that electoral unit."
' Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 which was relied upon for the same purpose as the petitioner seeks to achieve i,e, that because of late correction of the electoral roll, the beneficiary cannot contest an election but without success, may also be reproduced below :- "20. No revision or correction of any electoral roll for an electoral area shall be made nor shall any order under section 19 he made in respect of any electoral roll at any time after the constituency of which such electoral area forms part has been called upon to elect its representative and before such representative has been elected."
' It may be noticed that when there was a clear bar provided for making correction in the electoral roll and it was made nonetheless, that did not affect the right of the person in whose favour the correctionwasmade to contest the election as a candidate because this right was held to be distinct. This is vide judgment of the Supreme Court above-quoted (1982 SCMR 307). In the case in hand, section 18 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as amended up to date does not prohibit making of correction, rather it provides for. Only by the second proviso it is laid down that correction made after calling upon the constituency to elect will not be taken into consideration for that purpose. Obviously for casting of vote-because last mentioned entry of voters may prejudicially affect the candidates and the electoral process. Otherwise the correction is not null, nor, the proviso can nullify the effect of the main provision. Moreover, the proviso in section 18 is followed by the provision of section 20 brought about simultaneously by the amendment. Therefore, the subsequent provision will have its play too. The reasoning of the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ch. Muhammad Hussain's case for holding his election in identical rather in stringent statutory provisions by drawing a distinction between a candidate and a voter fully applies to the case of the respondent. The fact that nobody had raised objection earlier than election about the correction of the electoral roll was also mentioned in the aforesaid decision but the case had been decided on the aforesaid legal ground as would clearly appear from the opening sentence of paragraph 18 of the judgment at page 312 of the report.
6. We have perused the entry No, 306 in the electoral roll as well as its correction. The discrepancies are in the name of the respondent and his father. Other description, like the name of the grandfather, house number etc. Are correct and undisputed. The discrepancies in the name are that instead of Muhammad Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, it is written as Muhammad Imtiaz Ali Sheikh and instead of Muhammad Sharif it is recorded as Muhammad Ashraf. The inaccuracies or mistakes could have come about because of wrong reading of the previous entries, or, just by misspelling the names from (.)l;e:i1){{URDU TEXT}} to and to (.3,41). Reading the names in Urdu has been attempted to clarify the p int. There is no doubt that the entry refers to the respondent No, 2 Truth being there, it need not and cannot be avoided with impunity. History tells us so. The fundamental of the law of election is to find out who is liked by the electorate. All laws and rules are made for that purpose. Therefore, any person who seeks elected office cannot legitimately get in there by elbowing out his competitors on technical grounds. The petitioner, it is stated, had successfully: contested election twice over previously. He need not shy away in the' third round. It is fake glory to gain representative office without proper contest.
The learned Returning Officer had the material and law before him. He has come to certain conclusion that the respondent was entitled to contest the election. Even if his decision were erroneous, the same would not be liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction (PLD 1974 SC 139). .
7. For the reasons given above, we find no merit or force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the petition involved legal question the parties shall bear their own costs.