' The petitioners submitted their nomination papers as a joint candidature for the seat of Chairman and Vice Chairman of Union Council No. 86, District Council Bahawalnagar. During scrutiny on 17.09.2015, nomination papers of the petitioners were rejected by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that as per computerized identity card age of Petitioner No. 2 was less than 25 years. The petitioners approached appellate authority and filed appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 2 is not less than 25 years of age; that in fact the said petitioner and his sister were born in Union Council 178 as their father went abroad and sent his wife to the house of her parents in Union Council 178 Madina Town, Faisalabad; that Respondent No. 2 while passing impugned orders did not consider the documents produced by the petitioners; that date of birth of Petitioner No. 2 was wrongly entered in Union Council 46 because father of Petitioner No. 2 was not available in Pakistan and that on the application moved, by the petitioners to Administrator Union Council concerned an order for deletion of name of Petitioner No. 2 from Sr.120 Chak No. 45/F was passed on 03.10.2015, so, wrong entry has been rectified. Learned counsel further submits that Petitioner No. 2 also filed a suit for perpetual injunction for grant of decree for correction of his date of birth before learned Civil Judge at Chistian who passed an order dated 05.10.2015 for constitution of District Standing Medical Board and said Board declared age of Petitioner No. 2 between 25 to 26 years, hence, petitioners are eligible to contest elections.
4. Conversely, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for rival candidates vehemently opposed this petition by placing on record CNIC of Petitioner No. 2 according to which his age is less than 25 years and submits that petitioners are not eligible to contest elections and their nomination papers were rightly rejected by the respondents.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It is established from Computerized National Identity Card of Petitioner No. 2 that he was born on 26.09.1991 and admittedly his age was less than 25-years at the time of filing of nomination papers.
The birth certificate of Petitioner No. 2 issued by Secretary Union Council No. 178 Chak No. 202/RB Madina Town, Faisalabad clearly suggests that the same was issued on the basis of manual entry at Sr.No. 232 and perusal of birth register shows that entry at Sr.No. 229 has been left blank which creates doubts in authenticity of said documents and possibility of ante dated entries cannot be ruled out in the said register. Filing of civil suit for the purpose of correction of date of birth is itself admission on the part of Petitioner No. 2 that at present his date of birth as mentioned in CNIC is less than 25 years. Report of Administrator Union Council No. 46 shows that order of cancellation of birth certificate of Petitioner No. 2 was withdrawn on 07.10.2015 w.e.f.
3.10.2015 meaning thereby that date of birth mentioned in CNIC has been revived. The order for cancellation of birth entry was withdrawn on the basis of application filed by Muhammad Ashraf, rival candidate. This circumstance forces me to think that if the date of birth mentioned in CNIC of the petitioner was wrong why he did not earlier move to concerned authorities for its correction and kept on sleeping in slumber for more than four years and when his nomination papers were rejected, he started his efforts to get changed his date of birth.
7. It is by now settled proposition of law that the entries in CNIC is admitted to be correct unless proved to the contrary by cogent and convincing evidence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of "Malik Muhammad Faisal and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation through Chairman and 2 others" (2008 SCM R 456).
7-A. For what has been discussed above this Court is of firm view that Petitioner No. 2 was less than 25 years of age at the time of filing his nomination papers and was not qualified to be a candidate or to be elected as member or to hold an elected office of a Local Government under Section 27(1)
(d) of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. I find no illegality, irregularity or even perversity in the impugned orders dated 29.09.2015 and 17.09.2015 passed by Respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively.
Resultant, this petition being merit less is dismissed.