The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby Respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal of petitioners filed against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by Returning Officer/Respondent No. 2 for rejection of nomination papers of the petitioners due to underage of Muhammad Akmal Petitioner No. 1, who was candidate for V ice Chairman.
2. The petitioners have asserted in this writ petition that the petitioners submitted nomination papers for the seat of Chairman and Vice Chairman of U.C. No. 127, Karpal Pur, Multan as joint candid ature; that during the scrutiny , it was found that the age of Petitioner No. 1 Muhammad Akmal is 23 years and due to that reason their nominations papers were rejected by Respondent No. 2; that the petitioners filed appeal before Respondent No. 1, which was also dismissed illegally vide order dated 28.10.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to birth certificate of Petitioner No. 1, his date of birth was 10.02.1990 and he was quite eligible to contest the election having the age of more than 25 years at the time of submission of nomination papers; that at the time of issuance of National Identity Card (NIC) his date of birth was got wrongly mentioned by his parents; that the birth certificate is public document and presumption of truth is attached to it; that the Respon dents No. 1 & 2 have illegally rejected the nomination papers of the petitioners. He placed reliance upon " Ali Hassan alias Jamshaid vs. The State" (2012 SCMR242).
4. Conversely , the standing counsel argued that alongwith the nomination papers the Petitioner No. 1 submitted the copy of National Identity Card, according to which his date of birth was 10.06.1992 and he was less than 23 years and in this way he was not qualified to contest the election being less than 25 years of age prescribed by Section 27 of Punjab Local Government Act, 1913.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioners submitted nomination papers as joint candidature for the seat of Chairman and Vice Clairman of U.C. No. 127, Karpal Pur, Multan. The Petitioner No. 1 Muhammad Akmal was candidate for Vies Chairman, according to nomination papers, he mentioned the number of his National Identity Card in his nomination papers Bearing No. 36303-0692595-1. The copy; of National Identity Card was also annexed with the nomination papers, acco rding to which his date of birth was 10.06.1992 and he was of the age of 23 years at the time of submission of nomination papers. The provisions of Section 27(1)(b) of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 provide that a person shall qualify to be elected as a member or to hold an elected office of Local Government, if he except the youth member , is not less than 25 years of age on the last date fixed for filing the nomination papers. The nomination papers were filed by the petitioners in first week of October , 2015 on which date his age was about 23 years, according to his own National Identity Card submitted by him alongwith his nomination papers. Therefore, the learned Returning Officer has rightly rejected the nomination papers of both the petitioners as they were contesting the election as joint candidature and one of them Petitioner No 1 Muhammad Akmal candidate for Vice Chairman was under age. Thereafter , the petitioners filed appeal before Respondent No. 1 on 19.10.2015 while relying upon the alleged birth certificate of Petitioner No. 1 alleging that the correct date of birth of Petitioner No 1 was 10.02.1990. The copy of alleged birth certificate placed on record by the petitioners reveals that the same was got issued and prepared by the Petitioner No. 1 on 18th October , 2015 after the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer. It is admitted- fact that the National Identity Card of, the Petitioner No, 1 was-issued in-the year 2010 in which the date of birth of Petitioner No. 1 is clearly mentioned as 10.06.1992. There is. no. explanation on behalf of Petitioner No. 1; that when his date of birth was mentioned as 10.06.1992 in his National Identity Card issued in the year 2010 why she did not move the concerned quarters for the correction of his date of birth, if the same was wrongly mentioned in his National Identity Card.
7. After going through the record, I am of the considered, view that Respondents No. 1 & 2 have rightly rejected the nomination papers of the petitioners through the impugned order's dated 13.10.2015 and 28.10.2015, respectively .
The factual controversy alleged by the petitioners cannot be resolved at this stage in writ petition when according to his National Identity Card of Petitioner No. 1 issued in the year 2010 his date of birth was mentioned as 10.6.1992 and he did not challenge the said entry before any forum prior to the rejection of nomination papers of the petitioners.
8. Resultantly , I dismiss the writ petition in limine .