ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J. C.M. No. 5116 of 2015. This is an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. seeking permission to array Syed Mahboob Alam Meharvi son of Syed Abdul Hameed as co-petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner is contesting election for the joint candidature of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union Council as such said Syed Mahboob Alam Meharvi is necessary party to be impleaded as co-petitioner.
2. For the reasons mentioned above, this C.M. is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions and the amended petition appended with this C.M. is allowed to be placed on the file.
MAIN CASE ' Briefly stated the facts for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties are that nomination papers of Ishaq ,Ahmad, respondent No. 3 filed along with respondent No. 4 to contest election for the joint candidature of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Union Council No. 68, Distt. Bahawalpur, were rejected by the Returning Officer/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.10.2015 on the objection raised by the petitioners not qualified being under 25 years of age at the time of filing of his nomination papers. However, the appeal filed by said Ishaq Ahmad, respondent has been accepted by the appellate authority vide order dated 4.11.2015 necessitating filing of this Constitutional petition by the petitioners being rival candidates.
2. By referring to Section 27(1)(b) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per National Identity Card issued by the NADRA age of respondent No. 3 was below 25 years i.e. less than the required age to contest election of the local government and as such he was not qualified but the appellate authority while ignoring said provision of law wrongly accepted nomination papers of respondent No. 3 which are liable to be set aside.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 by referring entries made in the Birth Registration Certificate issued on 19.10.2015 (after rejection of nomination papers) by Secretary Union Council Chanab Rasool Pur, Ahmad Pur East, contends that according to Birth Certificate date of birth of the said respondent was 30.6.1989 i.e. more than 25 years at the time of filing of nomination papers as required by law, therefore, his appeal was rightly accepted.
Further contends that respondent No. ,3 has already filed civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction for correction of his date of birth in the National Identity Card, therefore, counting 25 years from the date of birth mentioned in his Birth Certificate, he was qualified to contest the election.
4. Arguments from all corners heard at length and record perused.
5. Section 27. of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 deals with qualifications and disqualifications for candidates and elected members of Local Governments. Sub-section (1) of this Section runs as under:---
27. Qualifications and disqualifications for candidates and elected members.--(1) A person shall qualify to be elected as a member or to hold an elected office of a local government, if he:-.-
(a) is a citizen of Pakistan;
(b) except the youth member, is not less than twenty-five years of age on the last day fixed for filing the nomination papers; and
(c) is enrolled as a voter in the electoral rolls of the ward or the local government from which he is contesting the election.
' It is manifest from above-quoted Clause (b) that a person shall be qualified to contest election if he is not less than 25 years of age on the last date fixed for filing of nomination papers.
6. The National Identity Card of respondent No. 3 issued by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) on 22.9.2015 depicts his date of birth as 4.5.1993. If one goes by this entry in the Card, then age of respondent No. 3 was less than 25 years on the last date for filing of nomination papers. Although learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has produced photocopy of Birth Registration Certificate purportedly issued by NADRA with the signatures of Secretary Union Council, Chanab Rasool Pur, Ahmad Pur East in which date of birth of respondent No. 3 is mentioned as 30.7.1989, to contend that as per said Birth Certificate said respondent was more than 25 years of age and thus qualified to contest the forthcoming election of local government but said contention is of no avail to the said respondent for the following reason:- ' Section 9 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 deals with registration of citizens. Sub-section (1) says that every citizen in or out of Pakistan who has attained the age of eighteen years shall get himself and a parent or guardian of every citizen who has not attained that age shall, not later than one month after the birth of such citizen, get such citizen registered in accordance with the provision of this Ordinance. Perusal of this provision would demonstrate that it has two parts; one, that every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years shall get himself registered and the other is that a parent or guardian of a citizen who has not attained that age, within one month of birth of said citizen shall get such citizen registered as prescribed by the provisions of said Ordinance. Sub-section (5) authorizes the Authority to issue Certificate of Registration (Birth Certificate) to a citizen who has not attained the age of eighteen years but is registered under sub-section (1). Section 10 deals with National Identity Cards. It says that the Authority shall issue or renew on certain terms and conditions, subject to every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years and got himself registered under Section 9, a card to be called National Identity Card.
' Importance of National Identity Card can be gathered from the purposes enumerated in Section 19 of the Ordinance. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 prohibits issuance of passport, permit or other travel documents for going out of Pakistan to a citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years but does not possess or produce a National Identity Card. Sub section (2) says that any officer charged with the duty of conducting the poll at an election may, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the identity of any person, require such person to produce his National Identity Card.
Sub-section (4) contemplates that a card including a National Identity Card issued to a person under this Ordinance shall be proof of his identity as could be established from the contents of such card for any purpose for which his identity is required to be established. This means that identity of a citizen is dependent upon the contents of the National Identity Card and the entries of the identity card are the proof of identity of a person. Needless to ..mention that the National Identity Card is issued after full inquiry is made on the basis of solemn affirmation of the applicant regarding the information supplied by him. It is a public document and has got probationer value.
Presumption of truth is attached to it and can be considered as an evidence. It is with this background that making any false information or material particular which is not believed to be true to obtain National Identity Card has been made punishable under Section 30(2)(a) of the National Databas and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000.
7. It is by now settled proposition of law that entries. in CNIC are considered to be more authentic and admitted to be correct and have to be given preference over other documents/certificates unless the same was rebutted by better and strong evidence. I am, therefore, of the considered view that entries in the National Identity Card carry sufficient weight to be considered for determining the age of any person. Steering thoughts in this regard have been gathered from the cases of Abdul Ghani and others v. Mst. Yasmeen Khan and others (2011 SCM R 837), Mst. Razia Khatoon through Legal Heirs v. Dr. Roshan H. Nanji and another (1991 SCM R 840) and Malik Muhammad Faisal and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation through Chairman and 2 others"
(2008 SCM R 456). This being the position, preference is to be given to the entries made in the Identity Card issued under Section 10 over the entries made in the Birth Registration Certificate and that too issued after issuance of National Identity Card or any other document including School Leaving Certificate which do not carry equal authenticity.
8. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lightly ignored. In the Electoral Roll 2012, copy of which is appended as Annex-D, vote of said respondent was registered at Sr. No. 274 in Census Block Code No. 243090505 in Electoral Area of Rasoolpur, District Bahawalpur having same number of National Identity Card. This fact indicates that Computerized National Identity Card had been issued to the said respondent much before preparation of Electoral Roll 2012 meaning thereby that the present Computerized National Identity Card issued on 22.09.2015 is revised/duplicate or has been issued after expiry of old CNIC. Last date of filing of nomination papers was 07.10.2015. There is nothing on record to suggest any effort made by said respondent for correction of his date of birth if wrongly mentioned on Computerized National Identity Card before filing his nomination papers. This fact is sufficient to demonstrate that respondent No. 3 used this National Identity Card for many years for different purposes without any complaint.
According to plaint, the civil suit was filed by respondent No. 3 for correction of date of birth on 21.10.2015 i.e. after rejection of nomination papers. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 frankly conceded that date of birth depicted on the Computerized National Identity Card of said respondent is 4.5.1993. He even failed to place on record any educational document to display his date of birth as 30.7.1989. By filing civil suit in Civil Court the respondent has admitted that in the line of his date of birth mentioned as 4.5.1993 in the Computerized National Identity Card he was less than 25 years of age at the time of filing of nomination papers.
9. In the factual background supra, after perusal of entire material available on record with respective submissions from all corners, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No. 3 was less than 25 years of age at the time of submission of his nomination papers and was thus not eligible to contest election in view of the bar contained in Section 27(1)(b) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. Resultantly, this Constitutional petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.11.2015 passed by appellate authority/respondent No. 1 is set aside and the order dated 13.10.2015 of the Returning Officer/respondent No. 2 is upheld consequent of which nomination papers filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 are rejected.