JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Begaram against an order of the Collector Sikar setting aside his election as Sarpanch of the Dinarpura Panchayat on an election petition filed against him by Jiwanram respondent No. 2, The petition was contested by Jiwanram.

2. Bega Ram was elected Sarpanch of Panchayat Dinarpara at an election held on 23.1.59- On the date of election an objection was taken that he did not fulfil the qualification of literacy prescribed under sec. 13(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Returning Officer thereupon tested the ability of the petitioner to read and write Hindi as required by R. 8 of the Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and gave a decision that he was duly qualified in that behalf. Thereafter polling took place and Begaram was declared elected as Sarpanch, having defeated the rival candidate Jiwanram by 10 votes.

3. Against the election of the petitioner Jiwanram filed an election petition under R. 19 of the Rules. The petition was forwarded by the Collector to the Sub Divisional Officer for inquiry and report. The S.D.O. reported that the election was invalid. On receipt of the report the Collector heard the parties and passed the impugned order setting aside the election. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The Collector held the election to be invalid on three grounds, namely, that the petitioner was not able to read and write Hindi, that 8 voters voted twice for him and that polling was closed at 3.30 p.m. instead of being continued till 4 p.m. and it was possible that some voters might have come to vote after 3.30 p.m. and might have been precluded from voting. The election however cannot be set aside on the last two grounds. Only 8 persons were proved to have voted twice for the petitioner, but he won by 10 votes. This irregularity therefore did not substantially influence the result of the election. It was not found by the Collector that any voter was in fact precluded from voting because polling was closed at 3.30 p.m. It cannot therefore be said that the result of the election was substantially influenced by closing the polling at 3.30 p.m.

5. With regard to the first ground the petitioners objections are as follows:—

(1) that the standard by which the ability of the petitioner to read and write was tested was much higher than laid down by the Legislature under sec. 13(1) of the Act.

(2) that a perusal of what the petitioner wrote before the Returning Officer to his dictation shows that he is able to write Hindi.

(3) that the passage which he was asked to read by the S.D.O. is in very difficult Hindi and requires a higher degree of proficiency to read it than that laid down under the Act. In the alternative it was urged that the standard of literacy laid down in sec. 13(1) of the Act is vague and is consequently hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution being susceptible of discriminatory interpretation.

6. On behalf of the contesting respondent reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ismail Vs. Rajasthan State (1) in which the provisions of Rule 13(1) framed under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act 1951 came up for consideration. This rule is worded as follows : —

"Subject to the disqualifications mentioned in sec. 12 and sub-secs. (3) and (6) of sec. 19 of the Act, every person who is on the roll and is also capable of reading and writing Hindi or is otherwise literate, shall be qualified to be a candidate."

7. So far as the test of literacy is concerned these words are similar to the words used in sec. 13 of the Act, which uses the words "able to read and write in Hindi". It was held by Division Bench which decided the above case that R. 13(1) provides a simple qualification of the reading and writing Hindi or showing that a candidate is otherwise literate, and it is not so vague that it must be struck down. It was observed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document