MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J. -- Petitioner is enlisted at serial No. 289 in Ward No. 161/6 as voter. He filed nomination papers to contest elections to a general Muslim seat. However, he wrongly mentioned the number of ward in the nomination papers as 163/6. According to the learned counsel the forms were entertained and were even accepted and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of validly nominated candidates in the said ward (i.e. 163/6. On coming to know the said error in the papers he filed an application before the learned R.O. That the said mis- description may be allowed to be corrected. This application was dis-allowed by the learned R.O.
On 28.2.2001 and he also proceeded to reject the nomination papers on the said date. Appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was taken by the learned DRO, Gujranwala alongwith several other applications, he proceeded to dismiss the same holding that the learned R.O. Has very rightly done the deed.
2. Learned counsel contends that the learned Returning Officer for Ward No, 156 to 163 was the same learned Presiding Officer and wrong description of the number of the ward was just a clerically mistake and the learned Returning Officer ought to have allowed this correction particularly, when the prayer was made well in time.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record placed alongwith this writ petition. I find that the learned Returning Officer as-well as the learned District Returning Officer have rather taken a very strict view of the matte-. In fact I find that the- impugned orders rather tantamount to making a fetish to technicality. The nomination paper for all purposes is an application and is to be treated at par without any other pleading. There is no dearth of authority that clerical mistakes or misdescription in pleadings are to be allowed to be corrected by the Court liberally. In the present case, it had been pointed out to the learned R.O.
While he was seized of the matter that the said clerical error. Is to be corrected in the form and he being himself a competent officer to entertain the papers for both Wards Nos. 161 and 163 should have not at all hesitated to act justly and properly in the matter by allowing the correction of the said clerical error. So far as the learned D.R.O. Is concerned I am constrained to observe that he has in all probability proceeded to dismiss all the appeals without even going through the record or appraising himself of the facts of each and every case.
4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Both the. Impugned orders of the learned Returning Officer and learned District Returning Officer are set aside, being without lawful authority. The petitioner is allowed to correct the number of ward in the nomination papers as 161/6 and for this purpose he should immediately approach the learned Returning Officer who will make necessary correction and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.