2004 PLP 29 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S. 14(c)‑‑‑Punjab Local Government ,Elections Rules, 2000, Rr.16 & 18‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Election for the seat of Naib‑Nazim‑‑‑Nomination papers, acceptance of‑‑‑Qualification of candidate‑‑‑Certificate showing' his qualification and date of birth produced by the candidate, was proved to be bogus one‑‑‑Candidate lacking qualification mentioned in S.14(c) of Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 to contest election to seat of Naib‑Nazim, orders accepting his nomination papers, were void‑‑‑Orders accepting nomination papers of the candidate, were set aside by High Court. Muhammad Akram Qureshi for Petitioner. Muhammad Amer Rehman and Shehzad Shaukat for Respondents Nos.3 and

4. Muhammad Jahangir Wahla, A.A.‑G. (on Court's call). Date of hearing: 20th March, The records are available which have been examined. In the register of the result sheets against Roll No.10511 has entered the name of Muhammad Siddique son of Sardar Muhammad. He has appeared in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. His date of birth is 14‑3‑1975. He has obtained 507 marks as total in all the subjects and has been graded as "C". The boy has been sent his certificate at Serial No.911. According to the original certificate produced on behalf of said respondent, he is son of Alam Din. The marks obtained are 409 and grade is "D" and the group is humanities instead of science group mentioned in the said original result sheet. The admission form of the candidate is also available according to which his date of birth is 14‑3‑1975 whereas the date of birth mentioned in the certificate produced by the respondent is 6‑3‑1963.1 also find that the serial number on the certificate produced by the respondent is 796110. The original certificate has been returned to the learned counsel.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the said original record, the certificate produced from the B.I.S.E., Faisalabad is bogus and since the said respondent lacks the qualification mentioned in section 14(c) or the P.L.G.O., 2000 to contest the election to the seat of Naib‑Nazim the impugned orders are void.

3. Mr. Muhammad Amir Rehman, Advocate who has put appearance for Mr. Muhammad Shehzad Shaukat, Advocate argued that it would be proper that the matter is left to be decided in a properly constituted election petition. I do not find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent. It is true that the scope of scrutiny proceedings is limited as urged by Mr. Amir Rehman, Advocate but in the present case the parties joined the proceedings and I had defined the controversy after hearing the learned counsel at some length in my order dated 16‑3‑2001. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 has come up with a certificate from B.I.S.E., Gujranwala which was found to be bogus. I accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the said certificate was not produced by him and he is not relying on the same. Learned counsel then urged that he is in fact relying upon the said certificate from B.I.S.E., Faisalabad. It was after hearing the' learned counsel in the said manner that I called for the records of the said Board which are available here and have been examined in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and I have referred to the details above. There can be possibly no cavil that the record I have examined is the only record with reference thereof such‑like certificates are issued. Upon said examination of the records, in comparison of the certificate being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, I am satisfied that it is bogus. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.2 are set aside. H.B.T./M‑2241/L Petition allowed.