Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Alok Sharma, J.
Smt. Gheesi Meena – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manju Meena – Respondent
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 14457 of 2017
Decided On : 07-11-2017
For the Appellants : Sudesh Bansal, Mr. Prahlad Sharma.
For the Respondent: M.F. Baig.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 227 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Section 19 43 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 – Rule 80 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Disqualification From Election – This petition, has been filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 20, whereby the Election Petition, filed by the respondent-Election Petitioner (the EP) challenging the election of the petitioner-returned candidate (the RC) was allowed and the election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat set aside – The respondent EP laid an election petition challenging RCs election under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 on two grounds (I) RC had three children on 24.1.2015, the date of contesting, the third was born after the cut off date of 27.11.1995 rendering her disqualified to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch in terms of Section 19(l) and proviso (iv) of the Act of 1994 and (ii) The RC had not passed class VIII from a school recognized by the State Government as mandatory under Section 19(t) of the Act of 1994 as the class VIII mark-sheet and TC in regard thereto issued by BNV Niketan Middle School Vishnu colony were forged and fabricated – Held, As far as denial of principles of natural justice vitiating the impugned judgment is concerned, Court is of the considered view that the contention has to be noticed only to be rejected – The failure of the RC to enter the witness box to be cross-examined on her affidavit in evidence was deliberate and obviously at her peril, of which she cannot be allowed to take advantage and cry denial of natural justice as a ground for setting aside the impugned judgment – As far as the question of RC giving birth to a third child after the cut off date 27-11-1995 is concerned, Court is of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any perversity, or patent illegality in coming to the said conclusion on the basis of RCs own document, the ration-card (Ex.15) submitted along with the nomination form – It is well settled that when the trial court has taken a possible view of the evidence laid before it and come to a conclusion thereon, it cannot be interfered with by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Resultantly the RC has been rightly held by the trial court to be disqualified and ineligible to contest election for the post of Sarpanch having given birth (on her own admission evident from Ex.15) to a third child in the year 1998 after the cut off date – There was not an iota of evidence at her (RC) instance to establish that her educational qualification as claimed was valid – No official of the school was summoned or produced. Nor was the school record summoned to prove that the RC had indeed passed her class VIII examination from the school – In the circumstances, Court is of the considered view that nothing perverse or illegal can be attributed to the findings of the trial court in its impugned judgment that the RC was ineligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch of village and her election as Sarpanch was thus liable to be quashed and set aside – Court find no force in the petition – Petition Dismissed
Alok Sharma, J.
1. This petition, purporting to be one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but in fact basically relatable to Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the judgment dated 17.8.2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 20, Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur, whereby the Election Petition No. 10/2015, titled Manju Meena vs. Gheesi Meena, filed by the respondent-Election Petitioner (hereinafter the EP) challenging the election of the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter the RC) was allowed and the election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Girdharilalpura, Tehsil chaksu, District Jaipur, (Raj.) set aside.
2. The RC contested election of the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Girdharilalpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur held on 24.1.2015. Having secured highest votes she was declared elected as Sarpanch. The respondent EP laid an election petition challenging RC's election under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1994’) read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1994’) on two grounds (I) RC had three children on 24.1.2015, the date of contesting the election, of whom Laddu Devi born on 2.8.1985, Kali Devi on 9.1.1987 and Pavan Kumar Meena born in the year 1998, the third was born after the cut off date of 27.11.1995 rendering her disqualified to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch in terms of Section 19(l) and proviso (iv) of the Act of 1994 and (ii) The RC had not passed class VIII from a school recognized by the State Government as mandatory under Section 19(t) of the Act of 1994 as the class VIII mark-sheet and TC in regard thereto issued by BNV Niketan Middle School Vishnu colony Laxmi Nagar Jaipur were forged and fabricated.
3. The RC in reply to election petition denied all allegations of her ineligibility both on count of contravention of Section 19(l) and 19(t) of the Act of 1994.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1-
vk;k okn vizkFkhZ dh rhu lUrku gksus ds otg ls o vafre lUrku fnuakd 27-11-1995 ds mijkar tUe gksus ds dkj.k iapk;r vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj og ljiap in ds v;ksX; gS\
;kfpdkdrkZ
2-
vk;k okn vizkFkhZ Jhefr ?khlh vkBoha d{kk mrh.kZ u gksus ds dkj.k iapk;r vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj ljiap in ij fu;af=r gksus ij og in cus jgus ds v;ksX; gS\
;kfpdkdrkZ
3-
vk;k okn Jherh ?khlh }kjk rF;ksa dks fNikdj pquko yM+k x;k gS o bl dkj.k ls og vius in ij cus jgus ;ksX; ugha gS\
;kfpdkdrkZ
4-
vk;k okn oknh fo:) izfroknh nkos esa of.kZr vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
;kfpdkdrkZ
5-
vuqrks"k\
;kfpdkdrkZ
5. In support of her case the EP examined herself as AW-1 and Ramkanwar Meena PW-2, and exhibited 16 documents. The RC examined Narhu Ram DW-1, Kalu Ram DW-2, Ramlal DW-3 and Kirodi Lal DW-4 and exhibited 4 documents.
6. The trial court has on the evidence before it set aside the election of the RC. Hence this petition.
7. Mr. Sudesh Bansal and Mr. Prahlad Sharma counsel for the petitioner RC submitted that the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2017 passed by the trial court setting aside the RC's election to the post of Sarpanch is first liable to be quashed and set aside only on the ground of denial of principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the RC was not given sufficient opportunity to appear in cross examination on her affidavit in evidence and hence denied her defence. It has been submitted that subsequent to filing of affidavits of witnesses on 15.4.2017 the RC fell ill and had to undergo medical surgery (operation of the Gall-bladder), and consequently the matter was adjourned for her cross examination. Subsequent to RC's discharge from the hospital, a Commissioner for her cr
