SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 3312

2011 (4) PLR 427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.
Paro Bai - Appellant
Vs.
Bimla Rani and others - Respondents
FAO No.1147 of 2010
Decided on: 10.12.2010

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M.K. Sajjan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Suresh Aneja, Advocate for respondent No.1.

A person below 21 years is not eligible to contest the election for the seat of Panch as per Article 243F of the Constitution and relevant state acts.

Headnote:

Election Eligibility - Age Requirement - Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, Constitution of India

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the election of respondent No.1 for the post of Panch, alleging that she did not meet the minimum age requirement of 21 years as per Section 208(1)(a) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's evidence, including the Matriculation Certificate and school records, proved that respondent No.1 was below 21 years at the time of filing nomination papers. The court also clarified that the High Court's order did not address the eligibility issue. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside respondent No.1's election as Panch and Sarpanch.

Issues: The main issue was whether a person below 21 years could contest the election for the post of Panch under the relevant acts and the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person below 21 years is not eligible to contest the election for the seat of Panch as per Article 243F of the Constitution, and the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside respondent No.1's election to the post of Panch and subsequently to the post of Sarpanch.

JUDGMENT

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. - The important question involved in this appeal is “as to whether a person, who has not attained the age of 21 years is eligible to contest the election for the post of Panch under the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act No.9 of 1994) or the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act No.19 of 1994) or the Constitution of India (for short ‘the Constitution’)?

2. The 5 members Gram Panchayat, Gagan Ke, Block and Tehsil Fazilka, District, Ferozepur comprises of 2 posts for Woman (General), 2 posts for Male (General) and 1 post for Backward Class. The elections were held to constitute the Panchayat on 26.5.2008 in which appellant/election petitioner (Paro Bai) and respondent No.1 (Bimla Devi) contested for the post meant for Woman (General) in which respondent No.1 was declared elected.

3. The appellant had challenged the election of respondent No.1 by way of the election petition, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No.1 had not completed the minimum age of 21 years on the day when she had filed her nomination papers, therefore, she was not eligible to contest the election for the post of Panch in terms of Section 208(1)(a) of the Act No.9 of 1994. It was, thus, prayed that her election may be set aside. In support of her case, the appellant examined herself, Sumer Singh, Reshma Bai (respondent No.3), Darshan Singh (respondent No.4) and Swaran Chand (respondent No.6) besides producing Duli Chand, Maths Teacher, Govt. High School, Kirianwali, Tehsil Fazilka, who had stated that as per school record the date of birth of respondent No.1 (Bimla Devi) is 20.04.1989. Nomination papers of respondent No.1 was summoned and produced by Pawan Kumar Dhawan, Returning Officer (respondent No.17) in which she had entered her age as 19 years and a copy of the Matriculation Certificate (Ex.A-5) bearing her date of birth as 20.4.1989.

4. On the other hand, respondent No.1 besides examining herself and Gurnam Singh, Member Panchayat, Gagan Ke (respondent No.11) had produced a copy of the voter list of the year 2002 of her parental Village Tarobari in which her age was recorded as 19 years and claimed to have completed more than 21 years on the date of filing of nomination paper besides producing a copy of the order passed by the High Court dated 16.7.2008 in CWP No.12153 of 2008.

5. It was alleged before the Election Tribunal that age of respondent No.1 was 19 years at the time of filing of nomination papers which is so recorded in the nomination papers itself and that the appellant had raised objection about the age of respondent No.1 on 17.5.2008 along with the Matriculation certificate bearing her age but she was allowed to contest the election by the Returning Officer, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 208(1)(a) of the Act No.9 of 1994, however, the learned Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition on the ground that the age of respondent No.1 is recorded as 19 years in the voter list of the year 2002, therefore, she is presumed to have attained the age of 21 years during the election held in the year 2005. The appellant had not raised any objection at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and above all the High Court has held her to be eligible candidate in terms of its order passed in CWP No.12153 of 2008 dated 16.7.2008.

6. Aggrieved against the order of the Election Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed in which it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is a palpable error in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and that the order passed by the High Court in CWP No.12153 of 2008 has been misconstrued. It is submitted that Duli Chand, Maths Teacher, Govt. High School, Kirianwali, Tehsil Fazilka has proved from the admission register of the School, the date of birth of respondent No.1, as 20.4.1989. Moreover, the date of birth of respondent No.1 is recorded as 20.4.1989 in the Matriculation Certifica
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top