Advocates:
['OM PRAKASH MEHTA', 'RAJESH PUNIA', '', 'MAHAVEER SINGH BHANWARIYA', 'G R PUNIA']

(1 of 18)

[CW-15257/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15257/2021

Hathi Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, aged about 23 years,

resident of Village Belwa Khatriya, Tehsil Balesar, District

Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

Bheraram S/o Shri Chhagnaram, resident of Village Belwar

Khatriya, Tehshil Balesar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. O.P. Mehta

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted

by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order reserved on

::: 24/11/2021

Order pronounced on ::: 06/12/2021

Reportable

1.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner, for the

purpose of challenging the order dated 27.07.2021, passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District Jodhpur (hereinfater

referred to as ‘the Election Tribunal’ or ‘the Tribunal’).

2.

Before adverting to the legal issues involved, it would be apt

to run through the factual canvas of the case.

3.

The respondent-election petitioner filed an election petition

under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’) read with Rule 80 of

the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Rules of 1994’). It was inter alia averred in the

(2 of 18)

[CW-15257/2021]

election petition that petitioner-returned candidate and the

respondent-election petitioner had submitted their nomination

forms for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belwa Khatriya.

Apart from the petitioner and respondent, various other persons

had submitted their nomination forms, out of which some

withdrew their nomination forms whereas forms of some of them

were rejected. Resultantly only two candidates, the petitioner and

the respondent, remained in the contest for the post of Sarpanch.

4.

The election was held on 17.01.2020 through electronic

voting machine, and on the same day the votes were counted and

the result was declared. The petitioner herein was declared a

returned candidate.

5.

The details of votes as given in the election petition are

reproduced hereunder:-

Total electoral

:

2917

Votes casted

:

2446

Votes secured by election – petitioner:

1174

Votes secured by returned candidate :

1242

NOTA

:

30

6.

The election petitioner-respondent challenged the petitioner’s

election on the sole ground that he did not fulfill the requisite age

criteria provided in Section 19(a) of the Act of 1994, viz.-

‘minimum age of a candidate should be 21 years’.

7.

The present petitioner (non-petitioner in the election

petition) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

of Civil Procedure and requested the Tribunal to reject the election

petition, as the verification filed in the memo of election petition

was not in accordance with Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994. The

(3 of 18)

[CW-15257/2021]

application so filed by the petitioner herein was rejected by the

Tribunal vide its order dated 18.08.2020.

8.

Against the order aforesaid, passed by the Tribunal, the

petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was

registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No.11327/2020. During the

course of arguments of the writ petition, the counsel for the

respondent though conceded that the verification was defective,

nevertheless submitted that such defect is a curable defect and in

light of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.P.

Moidutty Vs. P.T. Kunju Mohammed, reported in AIR 2000 SC

388, he be permitted to cure the same.

9.

Acceding to the request so made, on 05.04.2021, petitioner’s

earlier writ petition came to be disposed of in the following

terms:-

“On such categorical submission made by the learned

Senior Advocate, the present writ petition is disposed

of with