' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No.5221 of 2005, Writ Petition No.5132 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5549 of 2005, as common questions are involved.
2. Relevant facts necessary to be mentioned in each of the said cases are as under:-- ' W.P. No.5221 of 2005 ' Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed nomination papers to contest elections to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in UC-76, Burewala, District Vehari. Sajjad Ahmad, respondent No.5 filed Matriculation Certificate (Annex-E) to demonstrate that he has the said qualification. His date of birth is recorded as 27-6-1983. Papers were objected to by the petitioners but the objections were overruled by the learned R.O. On 19-7-2005.
' W.P. No.5132 of 2005 ' The respondents Nos.3 and 4 tiled nomination papers for contesting election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in UC-21 Karor, District Layyah. Syed Ghulam ul Sayyadin Shah, respondent No.3 relied upon his Matriculation Certificate (Annex-B) wherein his date of birth was recorded as 2-5- 1982. The papers were objected to by the petitioners but objection was overruled by the learned R.O. Learned D.R.O. Vide order dated 26-7-2005 dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Anwar, Petitioner No. 1.
' W.P. No.5549 of 2005 ' Respondents Nos.4 and 5 filed nomination papers to contest elections to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in UC-39, City Multan. Athar Nawaz, respondent No.4 filed Matriculation Certificate to establish his educational qualification. His date of birth is recorded as 5-4-1983. The papers were objected to by the petitioners but the objections were rejected by the learned R.O. On 23-7-2005 and the appeal filed by the Petitioner No.1 was dismissed by learned D.R.O., Multan on 29-7-2005.
2. M/s Pir Masood ul Hassan Chishti, Mr. M. Arif Alvi and Muhammad Ali Gillani, Advocates for the petitioners in the said writ petitions argue that in view of the admitted position that the said certificates were filed by the said respondents and were relied upon by them, judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.2137 of 2005 is fully attracted and the orders accepting the nomination papers are liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, M/s Mehmood Ashraf Khan, Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and Mian Arshad Latif, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents in these cases, urge that the election process has since been completed and the writ petitions having been filed at a point of time after completion of the election process, the petitioners be referred to the Election Tribunal since constituted by the learned Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan learned counsel however, admit that the said certificates were filed by their respective clients. They rely upon the birth certificates of the respective respondents to urge that they did not suffer from any disqualification as envisaged by section 152(1)(e), of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
' In the matter of W.P.No.5221 of 2005 Mr. Mehmood Ashraf, Advocate further contends that appeal had not been filed against the order of learned R.O. Mr. Iltaf Ibrahim Qureshi, Advocate has also brought to my notice a judgment passed by me on 15-9-2005 in W.P. No.5659 to urge that this Court had declined to issue a writ in the said writ petition filed by another set of candidates in his case.
4. I have examined this case in the light of said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and I find that all the objections raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents at and answered therein.
5. In view of admitted position that the said Matriculation Certificates were filed and relied upon by the contesting respondents themselves, inference in the light of the said judgment has to be drawn that entry of date of birth is based on the information provided by the said respondents themselves in forms filled and signed by them as per rules of B.I.S.E.
6. I may note here that the judgment being referred to by Mr. Iltaf Ibrahim Qureshi, Advocate has been examined. Now I find that another set of candidates in UC-21, Karor had filed writ petition and it had been mentioned that present petitioners did file objections but the said petitioners did not and I disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the said petitioner having opted to.Remain silent, would not be entitled to extraordinary constitutional , relief. Nothing turns on the said argument of the said learned counsel. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned R.O. Accepting nomination papers of the said contesting respondents and that of learned D.R.O. Rejecting the appeals are declared to be without lawful authority and are accordingly set aside.
7. A copy of this order to be remitted to the learned Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan as also to the respective learned D.R.O.