The main legal point established is that under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, a person having more than two children after the cut-off date is disqualified from holding the post of Sarpanch.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2022, whereby the election petition preferred by the respondent No.2 Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Dinesh has been allowed and consequently, the election of the petitioner Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Parsing on the post of Sarpanch has been quashed and set aside.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner had contested the election for Sarpanch and Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Lohariya Bada, Panchayat Samiti Kushalgarh in the year 2020. After the election, the petitioner was declared elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

3. The respondent No.2 Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Dinesh preferred an election petition before the District Judge, Banswara. The same was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Banswara for adjudication. The main contention of the respondent No.2 was that the petitioner had given birth to the first child in the year 1989, the second child on 01.06.1994 and the third child on 01.07.1998, thereafter, the petitioner had given birth to the twins on 03.02.2001. The contention raised was that since the petitioner has given birth to the third, fourth and fifth child after the cut off date i.e. 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, she is disqualified for the post of Sarpanch. The Election Tribunal after framing of the issues and adjudicating the same, has allowed the election petition. The election of the petitioner has been quashed on the post of Sarpanch. Aggrieved of the order dated 22.08.2022, the petitioner has assailed the validity of this order before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits before this Court that the petitioner had given birth to the children on two occasions after the cut off date of 27.11.1995 as the twins born on 03.02.2001 will be construed as one unit and the delivery which took place on 01.07.1998 will be considered as the second delivery only. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner had given birth to two children, one on 01.07.1998 and twins on 03.02.2001 and therefore, the earlier child born on 01.06.1994 should be considered as an additional child and the petitioner may be held eligible as children born on 01.07.1998 and 03.02.2001 can be considered two children only and therefore, the petitioner cannot be disqualified on the ground of having more than two children.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

6. contention has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7835/2006 Ratiram v. Devi Charan & Anr. decided on 18.01.2010. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal, Banswara may kindly be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that the calculation with respect to the deliveries of the petitioner submitted before this Court is contrary to Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has correctly taken into consideration the number of children born after the cut off date and in consonance with Section 19 of the Act of 1994, the petitioner cannot be said to have only two children, even if it is construed that the twins born on 03.02.2001 is a single unit. He further submits that a bare perusal of Section 19 goes to show that if an additional child is born between the period from 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, the same will not be considered to be a disqualification for the purpose of this Act. However, in the present case, he submits that the petitioner already had a child prior to the two deliveries, wherein she had given birth to three children i.e. on 01.07.1998 and twins on 03.02.2001. He, therefore, submits that the learned Election Tribunal has correctly adjudicated the issue in question and has allowed the election petition and no interference is warranted by this Cour