' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, 5.-The petitioner and respondent No, 1 and others wanted to contest election for councillorship of Unit No, 41, Faisalabad. When respondent No, l's nomination papers came up for scrutiny the petitioner objected that respondent No, 1 was resident of Ghulam Rasul Nagar and that address was entered on the voters list. This area was not in Ward No, 41 (the ward in question). The respondent produced proof of the change of his address from Ghulam Rasul Nagar to Abadi Barkat Pura in Ward No, 41 which had been incorporated prior to 27th August, 1983 on which the date the constituency was called upon to elect. The objection was, therefore, overruled on 6th September, 1983. The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent No, 1 through Writ Petition No, 4277/83. No body appeared in support of the petition when it came up for hearing on 23rd January, 1984. The following order was passed :- "Petitioner find alternate remedy of election petition. Dismissed for non-prosecution."
' The petitioner filed an election petition. The learned Election Tribunal by an exhaustive judgment relying on three Supreme Court judgments came to the conclusion that since the application of "respondent No, 1 for change of his vote from Mohallah Ghulam Rasul Nagar to Abadi Barkat Pura" which fell within the electoral Unit No, 41 , "was filed much before the specified date when the constituency was called", I,e, 27th August, 1983 and was allowed the Registration Officer on 9th August, 1983, therefore, respondent's nomination papers were rightly accepted. He dismissed the election petition. This is vide order, dated 16th February, 1984. This is challenged by the petitioner through this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that under section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, transfer of vote could only be ordered by the Revising Authority and the order of Registration ' Officer, dated 9th August, 1983 was without jurisdiction. Secondly that notwithstanding the order, dated 9th August, 1983 the name of the respondent was not shown on the electoral rolls of Ward No, 41, the one in question, therefore, he had no right to contest election from this ward. He places reliance on Rashid Ahmad Rahmani v. Barkat Ali (1) to contend that it was open to the Election Tribunal to look into the order of the Registration Officer.
3. The petitioner contested election against the respondent No, I and others. He got 741 votes and the respondent No, 1 secured 1,052 votes. The petitioner having lost election by more than 300 votes should have had the grace to accept his defeat. The basic principle of election laws is to find out whom the constituency likes to represent it. As long as that is found out that is the end of the matter. Secondly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that transfer of name from one electoral unit to another can only be ordered by Revising Authority and not by the Registration Officer. This is without force on facts in this case. Under section 1 of Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, it is provided that a person may apply for transfer of his name from the electoral roll of one electoral area to the electoral roll of another by filing :-
(a) an objection to the inclusion of his name in the roll in which it has been included, and
(b) a claim for the inclusion of his name in the other, with the appropriate Revising Authority or Revising Authorities, if it is preferred before the final publication of the electoral roll under section 10, or with the appropriate Registration Officer or Registration Officers, if it is preferred after such final publication. "There is no denying the fact that the final publication of the electoral rolls had already taken place when the respondent No, I applied for change of his name from Mohallah Ghulam Rasul Nagar to Abadi Barkat Pura. The application was accepted by the Registration Officer on 9th August, 1983. No body objected thereto. The order had become final under the said Act. When the respondent No, 1 filed his nomination paper, the petitioner objected thereto but his objection was overruled. He filed a Constitutional petition but did not prosecute the same. It was dismissed for non-prosecution. He contested the election squarely and fairly against respondent No, 1 and secured 741 votes whereas respondent No, 1 got 1,052 votes, thus was defeated by more than 300 votes. Having accepted the contest and having been defeated, it was not manly to turn round and say that the nomination papers of the respondent should not have been accepted. The petitioner obviously too a chance to get elected by constituency but having been rejected, it does not lie in his mouth to say that contest was not permissible. One cannot have a cake and eat it. The petition has no merit or force.
It is dismissed in limine.