2006 PLP 1101 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL No.50, KOT LAKHANA,
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1101 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL No.50, KOT LAKHANA, |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1101 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1101 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1101 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL No.50, KOT LAKHANA,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---S. 14(b)---Punjab Local Government Elections Rules,. 2000, Rr.16, 18 & 65--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Rejection of nomination papers---Nomination papers filed by petitioner for contesting election for seat of Member General Councillor, were accepted by Returning Officer, but on filing appeal by respondent on ground that petitioner was not 25 years old, Returning Officer rejected nomination Papers of petitioner---Petitioner had filed constitu tional petition against rejection of his nomination papers and on last date of hearing, petitioner was directed to produce his Matriculation Certificate, which was produced by him---Since no time was left as election was due after few days, issue whether Matriculation Certificate produced by petitioner was genuine or bogus, would be decided by Election Tribunal, if matter was raised and provisions of R.65 of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 were invoked---Order of District Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers of petitioner, was set aside accordingly.
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Waseem Ashraf for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 22nd August, 2005.
- 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the Identity Card issued recently by NADRA, petitioner's date of birth is 1-1-1981 and in that way he is less than 25 years. He also submits that his record of Primary School shows that his date of birth is 1-1-1981 consistent with date of birth shown in his latest Identity Card. He also points out that petitioner relies upon the electoral roll which at Sr. Nos.217 and 218 shows his age 22 years and it shows similar Identity Card No.260-78-461563.
- 6. The matriculation certificate has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has raised serious objection as far as genuineness of this matriculation certificate is concerned. He submits that it should be verified from the Board.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The petitioner filed his nomination papers for contesting the Local Government Elections for the seat of Member General Councilor for U.C. No.50, Kot Lakhana, District Jhang. The learned Returning Officer accepted his nomination papers as no objection was filed.
2. The respondent No.3 filed appeal before the District Returning Officer on the ground that the petitioner was not 25 years old. The objection was accepted on 2-8-2005 and the nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected.
3. The learned counsel submits that according to voter list, his age was 25 years and the old Identity Card as well as Passport show the date of birth which fulfill the requirements of 25 years.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in the Identity Card issued recently by NADRA, petitioner's date of birth is 1-1-1981 and in that way he is less than 25 years. He also submits that his record of Primary School shows that his date of birth is 1-1-1981 consistent with date of birth shown in his latest Identity Card. He also points out that petitioner relies upon the electoral roll which at Sr. Nos.217 and 218 shows his age 22 years and it shows similar Identity Card No.260-78-461563.
5. On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce matriculation certificate. In a recent judgment the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that in case of dispute, preference should be given to date of birth shown in the matriculation certificate.
6. The matriculation certificate has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has raised serious objection as far as genuineness of this matriculation certificate is concerned. He submits that it should be verified from the Board.
7. Since no time is left and election is due on 25-8-2005. This issue whether the matriculation is genuine or bogus will be decided by the Election Tribunal, if the matter is raised and provisions of Rule 65 are invoked by respondent No.3. The Election Tribunal will be empowered and competent to decide this matter in the light of this order as well as in the light of order of the Honourable Supreme Court.
8. Consequently, order of the learned District Returning Officer dated 2-8-2005 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to contest election. In this regard, the learned District Returning Officer and the learned Returning Officer are to extend required facilities extended to valid candidates. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M-88/L Order accordingly.