Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 14.7.98 passed by the Election Tribunal (District Judge), Bikaner, by which the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch has been set-aside on the ground that the Returning Officer had committed an error in rejecting the nomination-forms filed by the contesting res- pondents herein.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that election for the post of Sarpanch reserved for woman (General Seat) of Gram Panchayat, Surpura tehsil Nokha district Bikaner, was held in January, 1995. The contesting respondents in both these petitions, viz. Smt. Bughi Devi and Smt. Dali Devi submi- tted their nomination forms for the said office, however, on the date of scrutiny, nomination forms of the said respondents were rejected and as there was no other candidate, petitioner was declared elected Sarpanch un-opposed.

(3). The contesting respondents filed separate election petitions before the Election Tribunal-respondent No.1 on the ground that their nomination forms had wrongly been rejected. Both the petitions were consolidated and heard together. In the said petitions, petitioner filed reply and took additional pleas that their nomination forms were also liable to be rejected on the grounds other than those, on which the same had been rejected by the Returning Officer. Nomination Form of Smt. Bughi Devi had been rejected for not submitting the certificate of belonging to Scheduled Caste. In reply to the Election Petition, petitioner took additional plea that her nomination form was also liable to be rejected for not filling-up the name of the constituency and,also, for not filling-up the Declaration contained in column 5 of Form IV (under Rule 25 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as ``the Rules, 1994). Nomination of Smt. Dali Devi was rejected on the ground that she had not filled-up the name of the constituency and also did not submit the certificate belonging to Scheduled Caste. She had also not made the declaration as required under Column 5 of the form but this point was not taken by the petitioner as an additional ground in her reply to the election petition.

(4).The Election Tribunal held that there was no requirement of filing the certificate of caste, as it was not required under the statutory rules and Smt. Bughi Devi had filled-up her caste as Meghwal and, thus, disclosed that she belonged to Scheduled Caste. In the case of Smt. Dali Devi, the Tribunal held that as the Returning Officer himself had mentioned, in the lower part of the nomination form that she was contesting the election from Constituency No. 39 (Surpura) and was satisfied and was having the knowledge that she was contesting the election from Constituency No.39 (Surpura), what was the occasion for the Returning Officer to reject her nomination form on the said count. Moreover, she had mentioned the name of the constituency in circle in Column 4 which furnished the details of the voters-list in which her name appeared. Thus, it was a substantial compliance of law and as such her nomination form had wrongly been rejected. The Tribunal, by the common impugned judgment and order, set-aside the election of the petitioner holding that the nomination forms of the contesting respondents had wrongly been rejected by the Returning Officer. Hence these petitions.

(5). Heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

(6). Rule 25 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under :-

``25. Presentation of nomination papers :- (1) On the day appointed under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 for the presentation of nomination papers any person qualified under Section 19 for election as a Panch and desiring to seek such election, hereafter in this chapter referred to as a candidate, shall deliver in person to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document