Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Alok Sharma, J.
Sunita - Appellant
Vs.
Saroj - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 7310 of 2017
Decided On : 17-11-2017
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Section 19 43 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 – Rule 80 – Evidence Act – Section 17 – Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 – Disqualification in Election – Under challenge is the judgment dated 17.4.2017 passed by Sr. Civil Judge, in Election Petition Civil Misc. Case, whereby the election petition laid by the petitioners-election petitioners (EP) against the respondent No. 1-returned candidate (RC) has been dismissed – The EPs filed a petition against the RC under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 on the ground that despite the RC earlier having borne 2 children, two other children of the RC were born after the cut off date i.e. 27.11.1995, and therefore, she was disqualified to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, in terms of Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994 – Further, the RC had not passed class-VIII examination and the documents pertaining to Class-X submitted by her along with her nomination form were forged, for which reason also the RC was also ineligible to contest the election in issue in terms of Section 19(t) of the Act of 1994 –However, the ineligibility of the RC on the ground of her having borne children subsequent to 27.11.1995 and the another ground of her not having the requisite educational qualification was decided against the Eps – Resultantly, the election petition was dismissed – Hence, this petition – Held, The above enunciation applies fully to the instant case where the issue before the trial court was not one of corrupt practice at an election where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, but one whether the RC had the requisite eligibility to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch, where standard of proof required was only preponderance of probabilities – In this view of the matter, Court would quash and set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and hold that the third and the fourth child of the RC, born subsequent to 27.11.1995 rendering her ineligible to contest the election of the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat – Resultantly, the election of RC as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat stands quashed and set-aside – The election Officer is directed to initiate steps forthwith in terms of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994 to hold fresh elections on the resultant vacancy – Writ petition stands allowed, as indicated above – Petition Allowed
Alok Sharma, J.
Under challenge is the judgment dated 17.4.2017 passed by Sr. Civil Judge, Bharatpur in Election Petition Civil Misc. Case No. 4/2015, whereby the election petition laid by the petitioners-election petitioners (for short 'EP') against the respondent No. 1-returned candidate (for short, 'RC') has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that EPs and RC contested the elections held for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Madarpur, District Bharatpur, the result of which were declared on 24.1.2015. In the said elections RC secured 827 votes and EPs secured 617 and 442 votes respectively. Resultantly, the RC was declared as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Madarpur, District Bharatpur.
3. The EPs filed a petition against the RC under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter, 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1994') on the ground that despite the RC earlier having borne 2 children, two other children of the RC namely Shashi Kumari and Sonveer Singh were born after the cut off date i.e. 27.11.1995, and therefore, she was disqualified to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Madarpur, District Bharatpur in terms of Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994. Further, the RC had not passed class-VIII examination and the documents pertaining to Class-X submitted by her along with her nomination form were forged, for which reason also the RC was also ineligible to contest the election in issue in terms of Section 19(t) of the Act of 1994.
4. It was submitted by the EPs in the election petition that the date of birth of RC's children, according to the school record Class II through Class IX, was as under:
Sr. No.
Name of Child
Date of Birth
1
Satyendra Singh (Son)
12/10/92
2
Sanjana Kumari (Daughter
10/10/95
3
Shashi Kumari (Daughter)
12/07/96
4
Sonveer Singh (son)
06/06/99
5. All the aforesaid four children of the RC passed the Secondary Examination from Board of Secondary Education, and the mark sheet thereof recorded their date of birth as under:
Sr. No.
Name of Child
Date of Birth
1
Satyendra Singh (Son)
12/10/92
2
Sanjana Kumari (Daughter
10/10/95
3
Sonveer Singh (son)
06/06/99
4
Shashi Kumari (Daughter)
12/07/96
6. However, the RC in her nomination form (4-D) and affidavit wrongly stated that as of 27.4.1994, the number of her children was 3 with their date of birth as under:
1. Satyendra Singh (son) 12.10.1989
2. Sanjana Kumari (Daughter) 13.11.1990
3. Shashi Kumari (Daughter) 24.12.1991
And further during the period from 27.4.1994 to 27.11.1995, another child one Sonveer was born on 14.11.1994.
7. It was stated that in the nomination form and in her affidavit, the RC had thus made false statement as to the date of birth of her four children, when in-fact she had given birth to two children before 27.11.1995 and the remainder two children after 27.11.1995. It was submitted that on this false and incorrect information concealing material facts, her nomination form was accepted by the Election Officer. It was further submitted that the RC had not passed Class-Xth examination. The Transfer Certificate and marks sheet of High School Examination, 1985 as attached with the nomination form had been forged. It was for this reason that the RC knowingly did not mention in her nomination form as to in which school she read from Class-I to Class-VIII.
8. On receipt of summons on the election petition, the RC put in appearance and filed a reply of denial. Her contention was that albeit she had four children, their date of birth mentioned in the school record and the marks sheet issued by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education and as consistently recorded Class-II to Class-IX on being so stated
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
