2018 PLP 273 (YLRN)
HABIBULLAH — Petitioner Versus INCHARGE NADRA, LARKANA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 273 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | Zafar Ahmed Rajput and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ |
| Parties | HABIBULLAH — Petitioner Versus INCHARGE NADRA, LARKANA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 273 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 273 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: Zafar Ahmed Rajput and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 273 (YLRN) (HABIBULLAH — Petitioner Versus INCHARGE NADRA, LARKANA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Inayatullah G. Morio for Petitioner.
- Abdul Waheed Abbasi for Respondent No.1.
- Abdul Rasheed Abro, A.A.G. for Respondent No.2.
- 3. Learned counsel for respondents have maintained that the comments filed by the respondent No.1 are self-explanatory which shows that the petitioner has filed this petition with mala fide intentions and he has not come to this Court with clean hands, hence his petition is liable to be dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Correction in date of birth in the record of National Detabase and Registration Authority
Effect
Petitioner contended that he, being uneducated, could not provide accurate date of birth of his family, so entries in Computerized National Identification Cards (CINCs) of his family needed to be corrected
National Database and Registration Authority [NADRA] contended that petitioner was not entitled to any relief as he had concealed the facts from the Court
Petitioner, in the year 2003, provided information to NADRA regarding dates of birth of members of his family and got CNICs
Petitioner, in the beginning of year 2005, applied again for modification in the dates of birth of his children and revised CNICs were issued to him which were accepted by the petitioner
Petitioner had concealed said facts in his constitutional petition
Petitioner having invoked constitutional jurisdiction with mala fide intention, constitutional petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. [Paras. 5 & 6 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J.
The instant petition has been filed with the following prayer: a) That, this Honourable court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to make necessary corrections in NADRA record form-B in respect of the date of birth of petitioner's two sons Hazar Khan and Mir Siraj Khan and One daughter baby Bilquees as per their date of birth shown in school certificates;
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied to the respondent No.1 for issuance of computerized CNICs for himself self and his family members and since he is an uneducated person, he could not provide accurate particulars in respect of dates of birth of his children, namely, Hazar Khan, Siraj Khan and Bilquees which were recorded as 02.02.1999, 05.01.2000 and 11.03.2001, respectively; however, the actual dates of birth of Hazar Khan, Siraj Khan and Bilquees have been were recorded in their school records as 14.08.2000, 09.11.2005 and 14.02.2007. It has further been contended by the counsel that the fact that the dates of birth of said children of the petitioner have not been recorded in NADRA first time came into his knowledge when his son Hazar Khan applied for issuance of Domicile and P.R.C. It has been also contended that when the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 for correction of his children's dates of birth, he refused to entertain such request, hence this petition has been maintained by the petitioner to redress his grievances as no other alternate, efficacious remedy is available to him.
3. Learned counsel for respondents have maintained that the comments filed by the respondent No.1 are self-explanatory which shows that the petitioner has filed this petition with mala fide intentions and he has not come to this Court with clean hands, hence his petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard, record perused.
5. From perusal of record, it reveals that on 15.11.2003 the petitioner applied for his CNIC and submitted an attested CNIC form bearing No. VM00000462 with his photograph, signature and thumb impression by mentioning therein the particulars of his children wherein the dates of birth of Hazar Khan, Siraj Khan and Bilquees were shown as 13.04.2000, 10.05.2001 and 17.04.2003, respectively. On the said information, CNIC was issued to petitioner and pre-assigned CNIC numbers were allotted to his said children. It further reveals that; thereafter, the petitioner on 2.03.2005 applied for modification in the dates of birth of his said children as Hazar Khan from 13.04.2000 to 02.02.1999, Siraj Khan from 10.05.2001 to 05.01.2000 and Bilquees from 17.04.2003 to 11.03.2001. The revised CRC was issued on 19.12.2005 which was accepted by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner had applied for the modification in dates of birth of his children has not been disclosed by the petitioner in his petition. The assertions of the petitioner that his children Hazar Khan, Siraj Khan and Bilquees were born on 14.08.2000, 09.11.2005 and 14.02.2007, respectively, are beyond comprehension. It means that on 15.11.2003 when the petitioner applied for his CNIC vide CNIC form bearing No. VM00000462, at least his two children; namely, Siraj Khan and Bilquees (who were earlier shown as born on 10.05.2001 and 17.04.2003, respectively) did not exist in the world.
6. It is; therefore, apparent that the petitioner has in fact filed this petition with mala fide intentions by fabricating the facts, hence, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of High Court Bar Association Library, Larkana within 60 days hereof.
7. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 06.12.2017. MQ/H-8/Sindh Petition dismissed.