IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Sharda Devi D/o Shri Lalan Ravidas - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7884 of 2018
Decided on : 05-04-2019
Disqualification - Municipal Election - Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, Section 18(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the municipal election and was declared elected as Ward Councilor. A complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner was underage at the time of nomination, leading to disqualification under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The State Election Commissioner disqualified the petitioner based on the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, disregarding other documents provided by the petitioner. The court found that the State Election Commissioner's decision was based solely on the matriculation certificate and did not consider other evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 18(2) of the Municipal Act, 2007 based on her age at the time of nomination.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof that the petitioner was underage at the time of nomination was on the complainant, who failed to provide sufficient evidence. The court emphasized that entries in official records must be proved by cogent evidence and cannot be solely relied upon.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the disqualification order, allowing the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No. 70 of 2017 by which he has declared the petitioner as disqualified under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short ‘Municipal Act, 2007’) on the ground that she was elected without completing the age of 21 years.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent no.2 issued a notification for election of the Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna in the year 2017. In contemplation to the notification, the petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste filed her nomination paper from Ward No. 19 for the post of Ward Councilor. In the voter list of 2017 of Ward No.19, name of the petitioner was mentioned at serial no. 3213 and her age was mentioned as 21 years. On the basis of the said voter list, she was also issued voter identity card no. AFS3511094. At the time of filing of nomination paper, no objection from any corner was made. In scrutiny, her nomination paper was found in order. She contested the election of the territorial constituency no.19 and was declared as returned candidate.
3. After declaration of result, the respondent no.10 Smt. Soma Choudhary had filed an application in the form of election petition before the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna alleging therein that the petitioner has been elected in the municipal election even though she had not attained the age of 21 years, which is against the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2007.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, Case No. 70 of 2017 was initiated before the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna. In the said case, the petitioner took a plea that her age was 21 years on the date of nomination and she was duly qualified. She had also appended birth certificate, school ID Card, Voter ID card, Adhar Card, PAN Card etc. as part of her reply.
5. After hearing the parties, the State Election Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 12.04.2018 disqualified the petitioner from the post of Ward Councilor of Ward No.19 of Patna Municipal Corporation under Section 18(2) of the Municipal Act, 2007.
6. Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 12.04.2018 the respondent no.2 has completely ignored and discarded the relevant materials, which were sufficient to prove that the petitioner was not underage at the time of filing her nomination. He submitted that the disputed question of fact could not have been adjudicated by the respondent no.2 after the petitioner had been declared elected as Ward Councilor. He contended that the burden of proving that the returned candidate had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of filing nomination was on the respondent no.10, who had filed the complaint and since she had failed to prove by leading cogent evidence, the election of the returned candidate could not have been set aside by the respondent no.2. He further contended that since the complainant had failed to place any evidence before the court to show that entry of age in the matriculation certificate had been made on the basis of information furnished either by the parents or by anyone else having special knowledge about the date of birth of the petitioner, the entry of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate have no evidentiary or probative value. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, since reported in (1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1, Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, since reported in 1965(3) SCR 861 and an unreported decision of this Court in Kamta Kumari Vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 1632 of 2013).
7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the order impugned has been passed by the respondent no.2 after hearing the parties and on the b
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.