MANOJ KUMAR MANGWANI Vs. JAMUNA DAS SUKHWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant calls in question the legality of the order dated 23.2.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara (CG) in an Election Petition, registered as M.J.C. No. 3/2005, filed under Section 20 of the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1961).

(2.) The brief facts are that the applicant and Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were the candidates, who contested the election of Councilor from Ward No. 3 of Municipal Council, Bemetara, District- Durg (CG.) which took place on 14.12.2004. The counting was done on 19.12.2004. The results were declared on 26.12.2004 and in the said election, the applicant was declared to be the winning candidate having secured highest number of 172 votes. Respondent No. 1 secured 170 votes and Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 secured 80, 2, 12, 0, 1 and 61 votes respectively. The election petition was filed mainly on the ground that the applicant, begot a child after 26th January, 2001 which increases the number of his children to more than two, and in this manner, he was disqualified to fight election as an effect of provisions of Section 38(1)(ee) of the said Act, 1961. It was contended that he furnished a false affidavit in this regard before the concerned authority and due to this statutory disqualification, his election should be declared invalid. Respondent No. 1 also claimed that since he had secured the next highest number of votes, he should be declared as elected in place of the applicant It was specifically pleaded vide Para 7(c) of the petition that the 4th issue of the applicant namely Chirag born on 31.1.2001 which disqualifies him for fighting the election under the aforesaid provisions.

(3.) The applicant filed his reply denying the contentions of Respondent No. 1. It was very specifically pleaded by him that the birth of his child namely Chirag had taken place on 3.1.2001 i.e. prior to 26.1.2001, therefore, the question of he being disqualified for the said election does not arise. The other Respondents, namely Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein, remained ex-parte.