1997 Supreme(Raj) 611

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.R.ARORA,A.K.SINGH
TARA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
SUDESH CHAUDHARY - Respondent
C. S. A. 125 Of 1997
Decided On : 08/12/1997

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not as wide as that of a Court of appeal, but it does not mean that the High Court has no jurisdiction at all under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the findings of an inferior Court or tribunal even if the findings have been arrived at in violation of the principles of natural justice or in disregard of the express provisions of law or when the findings are based on no evidence at all and there is manifest injustice on the face of the record.

Headnote:

ELECTION - SARPANCH - AGE - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 35 - RELEVANCY OF DOCUMENT - SECTION 114 - PRESUMPTION - SECTION 167 - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND EXTENT OF JURISDICTION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ERROR OF LAW - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION - INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT - HIGH COURT - POWER TO INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT - WRIT JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DISTINCTION - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 136 - RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE - SECTION 165 - JUDGMENT BASED ON RELEVANT AND DULY PROVED FACTS - APPLICATION FORM - RELEVANCY UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE - SCHOLARS REGISTER AND TRANSFER CERTIFICATE - RELEVANCY UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - ENTRIES MADE BY HEADMASTERS IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES - RELEVANCY AS PIECES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - PROBATIVE VALUE - BURDEN OF PROOF ON ELECTION PETITIONER TO PROVE CANDIDATE'S AGE - FAILURE TO DISCHARGE BURDEN - ELECTION PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO REBUT ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORD - EFFECT - ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST APPELLANT - IMPROPER.

Fact of the Case:

Respondent No. 1, Smt. Sudesh Chaudhary, contested the election of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, 4 B. L. D. district Shri Ganganagar. In the election, there were four candidates, namely Smt. Sudesh Kumari (respondent No. 1), Smt. Tara Devi (appellant) Gurmail and Vinod Kumar. Smt. Sudesh Kumari secured highest number of votes and she was declared elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and a certificate to that effect was issued on 1st Feb., 1995. The appellant Smt. Tara Devi filed an election petition before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rai Singh Nagar, on 14th Feb., 1995, under Section 43 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. In that election petition, the appellant Smt. Tara Devi challenged the election of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Sudesh Kumari on the ground that Smt. Sudesh Kumari was below 21 years of age on the date she was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat 4 B. L. D. , Shri Ganga-nagar. The election petition was contested by the respondent No. 1. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) held that it was proved that Smt. Sudesh Kumari was below 21 years of age on the date of her election as Sarpanch. Consequently the election petition was allowed and the election of Smt. Sudesh Kumari was declared void.

Finding of the Court:

The learned single Judge, after hearing the argument of both the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and decree dated 3rd October, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Raisingh Nagar and declared the election of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 to be valid to the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, 4 B. L. D.

Issues: 1. Whether the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 4th October, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Raishingh Nagar? 2. Whether the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Raisingh Nagar committed any error in arriving at the finding that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Sudesh Chaudhary was below 21 years of age on the date of her election as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 4, B. L. D. , Shri Ganganagar?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not as wide as that of a Court of appeal, but it does not mean that the High Court has no jurisdiction at all under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the findings of an inferior Court or tribunal even if the findings have been arrived at in violation of the principles of natural justice or in disregard of the express provisions of law or when the findings are based on no evidence at all and there is manifest injustice on the face of the record. 2. In appropriate cases, the High Court can exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution provided the conditions laid down for the exercise of jurisdiction are fulfilled. 3. The burden to prove that the respondent No. 1 had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of election, required to be placed on the election petitioner (appellant) and that burden could not have been placed on the respondent No. 1. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Raisinghnagar committed a serious mistake of law by framing issue No. 10 and placing the burden of proof on the respondent No. 1. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Raisinghnagar has committed the serious error of admitting in evidence the document Ex. 7 which is not relevant under Section 35 Evidence Act. 6. The entries contained in Exs. 5 and 6 cannot be regarded as direct evidence of the date of birth of Sudesh Chaudhary, these entries can be regarded as pieces of circumstantial evidence only within the meaning of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and it is necessary to consider what is their probative value. 7. The entries contained in Exs. 5 and 6 in spite of being admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act have no evidentiary value.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.