MAULVI ANWARUL-HAQ, J.-- Nomination papers filed by the petitioner to contest the election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in UC. No. 106, Shorkot, District Jhang, were rejected by the learned R.O. On the ground that petitioner No. 1 is not of the requisite age. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned D.R.O. On 9.5.2001.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had produced a copy of the birth register and in the absence of any allegation that the same is forged and fabricated, the same should have been accepted as evidence of the correct date of birth of the * petitioner as against the entry in the matriculation certificate. He also relies on the copy of electoral roll where the petitioner is entered at Sr. No. 315 (Gharana-288) and his age is recorded as 24 years on 1.1.2000. No one has turned up from respondent No. 3 despite notice sent through courier service.
3. I have examined the documents appended with this petition. I find that the said birth entry was relied upon before the learned DRO in the presence of the said objector and I do not find any objection to the genuineness of the said document being spit -out from the order of the learned D.R.O. Now whereas the birth entry in the matriculation certificate have been held by the superior judiciary to be not conclusive evidence of date of birth, the entry in the electoral roll and the birth entry (not questioned) has to take precedence on the said entry in case of conflict between two parties. Reference be made to the case "Emmanual Masih V. The Pb. Local Council Election authority etc" (1985 SCM R 729) and Malik Ghulam Dastgir V. SMA Kazmi, Secy. Govt. Of West Pakistan Food Deptt. Etc. (PLD 1970 Lahore 33). The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of learned DRO and RO are set aside. The petitioner to immediately approach the learned R.O. Who shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.