The judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and unambiguous evidence to set aside an election and upholds the popular mandate in electoral processes.

1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment dated 23.4.2014, rendered in C.W.J.C. No.13143/13, by the Learned Single Judge is challenged. The appellant is the 11th respondent in the writ petition.

2. Election to the Panchayats in the State of Bihar were held in March, 2011. The appellant, the 11th respondent (for short the respondent) i.e. the writ petitioner, and certain others filed nominations for the office of Mukhiya of Sahebpur Kamal Panchayat of Begusarai District. The respondent was declared elected. No election petition was filed by anyone challenging the election.

3. The appellant filed a petition before the Bihar State Election Commission, the 2nd respondent herein (for short the Commission), in November, 2011 with a prayer to declare the election of the respondent to the office of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat in question, as void. The only reason pleaded by her was that the respondent was below the age of 21 years, as on the date of filing of nominations. She pleaded that the respondent studied Bastania course in a Madarsa and, according to a certificate and mark-sheet issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, her date of birth is 12.4.1992 and, if the same is taken into account, the age of the respondent, by the year 2011 would be just 19 years. The respondent opposed the petition by raising several objections including those, as to maintainability. On merits, she pleaded that though at one stage, her date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 12.4.1992 in the certificates, it was later on corrected as 12.4.1982, and the certificates obtained by the appellant are not the correct ones. At one stage, she filed C.W.J.C. No.13824/12, challenging the proceeding before the Commission, but the same was rejected directing that the respondent shall participate in the proceedings.

4. The Commission directed the Special Officer, Balia to conduct an enquiry as to the controversy. A report is said to have been submitted to the effect that the respondent was below the age of 21 years as on the date of filing of nominations. Taking that into account, and after undertaking extensive discussion, the Commission passed the order dated 17.7.2013 holding that the respondent is disqualified for holding the post of Mukhiya. Directions were also issued to the officers of the concerned Department, to conduct fresh election under Section-136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for short the Act).

5. Challenging the order dated 17.7.2013, the respondent filed C.W.J.C. No.14321/13. She pleaded that the finding recorded by the Commission is factually incorrect and that the adjudication undertaken by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Act. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant herein as well as the Commission. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through judgment dated 23.4.2014. Hence, this Appeal.

6. Shri S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Commission has recorded a clear finding to the effect that the age of the respondent was below 21 years as on the date of filing of nomination and the Learned Single Judge has set aside that finding as though it is a court of regular appeal. He contends that the institution where the respondent studied Bastania course, issued certificates which are to the effect that her date of birth was 12.4.1992 and in the enquiry ordered by the Commission also, the same was affirmed; and the Learned Single Judge ignored the same. He contends that the Commission is vested with ample power to decide the factual aspect also, and the mere fact that the name of the respondent was entered in the successive voters’ lists does not alter the situation. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 and certain judgments of this Court; in support of his other contentions. Ultimately, he urged that the order passed in the writ petition cannot be sustained eithe