' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-Petitioner has challenged (the election of respondent No, 1 on the ground that on the date of filing of nomination papers i. e. 1st September, 1983, the latter was less than 25 years of age as required by section 20 of the Punjab Government Ordinance, 1979. In support thereof, he has filed School Leaving Certificate as well as his Identity Card, both of which show his date of birth to be 10th October, 1959, meaning thereby that on 1st September, 1983 he would be of 23 years 10 months 20 days, less than the prescribed age of 25 years. He has also filed a copy from the birth register showing the respondent to have born on 1st March, 1959.
2. Respondent No, 1 has filed written-statement saying that according to the Electoral Roll as on 1st January, 1979 his age was 23 years, and therefore, on 1st September, 1983 he would be much more than the prescribed age of years. It is submitted that the entries in the Electoral Roll are final under the Electoral Roll Act XXI of 1974.
3. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Electoral Roll is final for the purpose of right to cast a vote and not for contesting an election or being a member of an elected body. Reference was made to Full Bench case reported as Muhammad Tufail v. Muhammad Salim and others (1), Serajul Islam Khan v. Ahsan Ali Mondal and others (2) and 1980 SCMR 548.
4. The learned Advocate-General was requested to appear in this case. He has appeared and submitted that in view of the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the matter regarding the age of the candidate can be looked into
5. In view of the decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is quite obvious that the entries on the Electoral Roll are , final as regards the right to vote. These are not final in respect of the age when the question arises whether the voter on the Electoral Roll was
(1) PLD 1967 Kar. 104 (2) PLD 1959 SC 5 ' of the requisite age for being a candidate or member to an elected office. Therefore, it is obvious that it has to be determined as to whether the respondent was qualified to be a candidate at the time of filing of nomination papers as required by section 20 of the aforementioned Ordinance.
According to the evidence on record placed by the petitioner, especially the Identity Card of the respondent which the latter could have only obtained after giving his date of birth in the application form with an affidavit that the contents were correct, he is shown to have been born on 10th October, 1959. Therefore, on 1st September, 1983 when the nomination papers were filed, he was obviously less than 25 years and thus not qualified in accordance with the aforesaid provision of the Ordinance mentioned above. He could not thus be nominated and that being so could not be elected. Therefore, his nomination and election being contrary to the provision of law quoted above, the petition is allowed. But in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.