1993 PLP 2428 (CLC)

M. Mohy‑ud‑Din Qazi for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos.l and

2. Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 24th May, 1993. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 27‑9‑1992 of the Election Tribunal Khushab‑Jauharabad.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner and respondent No3 contested election from Ward No.6/1, Union Council Adhi Kot, Tehsil Noorpur, District Khushab, held on 28‑12‑1991. The petitioner secured 251 votes as against 221 votes obtained by respondent No

3. The petitioner was declared as returned candidate. The case of the petitioner is that during the course of scrutiny of nomination papers, respondent No3 raised objection as to the age of the petitioner that he was 24 years eleven months and seven days on the basis of his school record. The objection was overruled by the Returning Officer who held that the age of the petitioner was above 25 years on the basis of entries made in the electoral rolls.

3. Islam Din, respondent No.3 herein, filed an election petition which was rejected being premature by order dated 7‑5‑1992. After issuance of Gazette notification dated 14‑4‑1992, respondent No3 filed another election petition on 14‑5‑1992. The Election Tribunal declared the election of the petitioner as void on account of his being under‑age at the time of filing of nomination papers. Consequently, respondent No.3 was declared as a successful candidate vide order dated 27-9‑1992. '

4. A challenge has been made to the aforesaid order on the ground that the election petition was not maintainable being violative of the provisions of rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, in that respondent No.3 failed to deposit the security amount of Rs.500.

5. The contention is devoid of any force. The earlier election petition was disposed of as premature and, therefore, the security of Rs.500 deposited towards costs could have been adjusted in the subsequent petition.

6. On merits, it is contended that the Election Tribunal has relied upon the entry in the Admission and Withdrawal Register of the school to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was under‑age at the time of filing of nomination papers, but the same is not conclusive proof of the fact that he was born in the year 1964. In this regard reliance is placed on Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. The Collector, District Gujranwala (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore 1123) and Ch. Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Nawaz alias Dilawar Khan (PLD 1969 Election Tribunal 111). The precedent cases do not help the petitioner. In these cases, it was merely held that entries of school register are of a little value as evidence of age. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Election Tribunal was not competent to determine the correct age of the petitioner notwithstanding any entries made in the electoral rolls, on the basis of material available before it. There is also no provision either in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (No.VI of 1979) or in the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, to the effect that the entries in the electoral rolls are final and binding on the Election Tribunal. The provisions of rule 13 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, merely empower the Returning Officer to scrutinize and inter alia determine that the candidate is not subject to any disqualification for being elected as a member. He is, therefore empowered to determine the age of the candidate as per entries‑ in the electoral rolls. Clearly, the Election Tribunal is competent to determine the objection raised before it regarding age of the returned candidate in an election petition. Here both the parties produced their respective oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was under‑age at the time of filing the nomination papers. This finding is supported by the copies of Admission and Withdrawal Register of Primary and Middle Schools (ExhsA/2 and A/3), Admission Form of Degree College (ExhA/4) and copy of Matriculation Certificate (ExhA/5). There is no force in the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documentary evidence i.e. the electoral rolls (Exh.R/1), petitioner's Nikahnama (Exh.R/2), entries in Form `B' under the Registration Act (Exh.R/3), birth certificate of Mst. Azmat Bibi sister of the petitioner (Exh.R/9), should have been given preference over the documents produced by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal. The question of function of the Petition dismissed.