Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JYOTI SARAN, J.
Poonam Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1351 of 2015
Decided On : 29-09-2015
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Mr. Amit Bhushan
Mr. Anu Priyadarshi
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Raju Giri, GP-30, Mr. Santosh Kr. Misha, AC to GP-30
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv, Mr. Bhola Kumar, Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Mr. Ravi Ranjan
For the Respondent No.8 – BSSB: Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha
The judgment establishes the importance of comparative analysis in resolving age disputes and emphasizes the evidentiary value of official certificates. It also clarifies the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to adjudicate on disqualification issues.
Headnote:
Disqualification - Election Dispute - Age Dispute - Bihar Panchayat Samiti Election Act - Section 136(1), Section 136(2), Section 137 - The judgment discusses the dispute over the petitioner's age at the time of contesting the Panchayat Samiti election, the conflicting records from different examination boards, and the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to adjudicate on disqualification issues. The court quashed and set aside the State Election Commission's order disqualifying the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the Panchayat Samiti election and completed her term, but her election was challenged on grounds of being underage. The State Election Commission disqualified her based on conflicting records of her date of birth from different examination boards. The petitioner challenged the disqualification multiple times, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue revolved around the conflicting records of the petitioner's date of birth and the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to adjudicate on disqualification issues. The court quashed and set aside the Commission's order, stating that the Commission erred in rejecting the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board and relying solely on school records.
Issues: The main issue was the conflicting records of the petitioner's date of birth and the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to adjudicate on disqualification issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commission erred in rejecting the Madhyama Certificate and relying solely on school records. It emphasized the importance of comparative analysis and the evidentiary value of the Madhyama Certificate. The court also discussed the jurisdiction of the Commission to adjudicate on disqualification issues.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing and setting aside the State Election Commission's order. The consequences of the petitioner's disqualification were to follow, and the records were to be returned to the concerned parties.
The petitioner stands disqualified by the order of the State Election Commission dated 7.1.2015 bearing Memo no.77 dated 12.1.2015 passed in Case No.102 of 2011 and Case No.105 of 2011, inter alia, on grounds that the petitioner was underage to contest the election of Member, Panchayat Samiti, Block- Bakhtiyarpur in the district of Patna.
2. The contest raised through the present writ petition has a chequered history. The present writ petition is the third in the line of challenge made by the petitioner to the order (s) passed by the Commission in respect of her disqualification on grounds of age.
3. The facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner contested the election of Member, Panchayat Samiti, Bakhtiarpur in the year 2006 and successfully completed her term as its Pramukh. Although attempt was made by persons to question her election but the challenge was withdrawn. One Jhimi Lal Rai filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No.1945 of 2007 to question her election but withdrew the same on 2.12.2011. Another challenger namely Kaushalya Devi also filed CWJC No.8432 of 2007 to raise an election dispute before this Court but withdrew the same on 3.11.2011. The petitioner having successfully completed her term in 2011 again contested the Panchayat Samiti election in the year 2011 and was successful.
4. The election of the petitioner was questioned by the private respondents by filing the election cases in question bearing Case Nos.102 and 105 of 2011. The election cases were allowed by the State Election Commission vide judgment and order dated 23.8.2012 present at Annexure-4 and the writ petitioner was disqualified to hold the post of Member, Panchayat Samiti as she was held to be underage to contest the election. The writ petitioner challenged the order of the Commission before this Court in CWJC No.16448 of 2012 and a Bench of this Court vide order passed on 8.11.2012 present at Annexure-5 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commission to call for a report from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Sanskrit Shiksha Board”) as regarding the correctness of the Madhyama Certificate so relied upon by the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The Bench was of the opinion that the stand of the writ petitioner in claiming to be adult on the date of contesting the election relying upon the Madhyama Certificate of “the Sanskrit Shiksha Board” should have been given a consideration by the Commission.
5. The private respondents questioned the order of the learned Single Judge in LPA No.492 of 2013 and the Division Bench without interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge disposed of the appeal vide order passed on 24.9.2013 present at Annexure-6. Following the remand, a report was called for from the Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha Board present at Annexure-8 and which was submitted by the Examination Controller of the Board on 25.9.2013 forming part of Annexure-8 series. The Deputy Secretary of the Commission was deputed to examine the record and give his report and which also forms part of Annexure-8 series. The State Election Commission vide judgment and order passed on 2.12.2013 upheld the contentions of the election petitioners that the writ petitioner was underage at the time of contesting the election and confirmed its earlier order passed on 23.8.2012.
6. The writ petitioner being aggrieved again came before this Court in CWJC No.1375 of 2014 and which was heard and allowed on 24.11.2014 on limited grounds that despite the earlier order dated 23.8.2012 of the Commission having been set aside by this Court in CWJC No.16448 of 2012 yet the Commission while allowing the election case on remand vide order passed on 2.12.2013, had proceeded to confirm the same very order passed on 23.8.2012 which was not in existence. The matter was again remitted back to the Commission for passing a fresh order and which remand has resulted in the impugned order passed on 7.1.
