ORDER 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 Lakhnana, 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. No. 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 Honorables 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 nonmatter is raised and provisions of Rule 65 are invoked' by r 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 Honorables 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.