The court ruled that the Election Petition must be verified as per the Election Rules, and that birth certificates are admissible evidence, while Ration and Jan Aadhaar cards are not conclusive proof of age.

Order

(NUPUR BHATI, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-8) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No.1 in CIS No. CMC (NC)/42/2020, whereby the Election Petition (Annex-1) filed by the respondent was allowed and the election of petitioner on the post of Sarpanch on 28.09.2020 was declared as void under Section 19(l) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The prayer made in the instant writ petition is reproduced hereunder:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ of mandamus may kindly be allowed by an order, writ or direction:-

(i) The order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-8) passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Bikaner in C.I.S. No. CMC (NC)/42/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside and Election Petition filed by respondent may be dismissed.

(ii) Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed an Election Petition under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Election Rules, 1994’) read with Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) challenging the election of the petitioner. It was averred by the respondent in the Election Petition (Annex-1) that the petitioner has six children and two of them are born after the cut-off date i.e., 27.11.1995 hence, he was not qualified to contest the election of Sarpanch. The petitioner, in his reply to Election Petition, denied the averments made therein. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties the learned Trial Court framed as many as four issues which are reproduced hereunder:

^^1- vk;k xzke iapkr jktklj HkkfV;ku ds ljiap in gsrq dh x;h fuokZpu dh ?kks"k.kk djokrs gq, ljiap in dk pquko fujLr djkus dh izkfFkZuh vf/kdkjh gS\

2- vk;k izkfFkZuh dh ;kfpdk fe;kn ckgj gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\

3- vk;k izkfFkZuh }kjk fjVfuZax vf/kdkjh dks i{kdkj ugha cuk, tkus ds vk/kkj ij izkfFkhZuh dh ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

4- vk;k izkfFkZuh dh pquko ;kfpdk izfrHkwfr jkf'k tek ds vHkko esa [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\

5- vuqrks"k\^^

3. The Election Petitioner, now respondent before this Court hereinafter referred as “respondent/EP”, examined three witness (PW1 to PW3) and produced fifteen documentary evidences (Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 15). On the other hand, the Returning Candidate, now Petitioner before this Court hereinafter referred as “petitioner/RC” examined two witness (DW1 and DW2) and produced four documentary evidences (Exhibit A1A to Exhibit-A4A).

4. After hearing both the parties and on the basis of material available on record the learned Trial Court allowed the Election Petition (Annex-1) vide order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-8) and declared the election of the petitioner as void. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have dismissed the Election Petition at the outset, as the same was not verified, as mandated under Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 read with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He also submitted while drawing attention of this Court to the Election Petition (Annex-1) that the respondent has stated specifically as to which facts she verifies of her own knowledge and which facts she verifies upon information received and believed to be true by her. He also submits that the respondent has not verified the documents attached with the Election Petition (Annex-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on various judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Ramnarayan Yadav v. Garib Yadav [1971 0 Supreme (Pat) 93 (para 15,16,19)], [Azizul Husna