SANTOSHI Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner on I.A. No. 2, application for taking documents on records. Not opposed. Allowed. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has questioned the legality, validity & correctness of the order of Annexure P-1, dated 14-9-2006, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby election petition of the respondent No. 2 under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Act of 1993') has been allowed and election of the petitioner to the post of Member, Janpad Panchayat, Katghora has been set aside. Petitioner was elected as member of Janpad Panchayat, Katghora from Constituency No. 18, defeating the respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 presented election petition under Section 122 of the Act of 1993 on 10-2-2005 on the ground that the petitioner had given birth to third child namely Ku. Renuka, on 12-9-2001. She had filed her nomination paper deliberately suppressing the above fact. Her date of birth was fabricated as 12-9-2000 in place of 12-9-2001 in Kotwari Register. An ineligible lady contested the election and won from the constituency No. 18. The respondent, election petitioner, stood 2nd after counting and therefore, she be declared elected as member of the Janpad Panchayat after allowing the petition.

(2.) THE Election Tribunal/respondent No. 1 called for report from Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Korba regarding birth of the third child of the petitioner. Learned Additional Collector, on the basis of report and birth certificate submitted by the S H.O., City Kotwali, Korba held that the third child of the petitioner was born after 26th of January, 2001 on 12-9-2001. In view of Section 36(1)(m) of the Act of 1993, she was not qualified to be office bearer of the Panchayat. She contested the election by suppressing her actual date of birth and submitting false information in her nomination paper and accordingly her election was set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to be an office bearer of the said Panchayat as per Section 36(1)(m) of the Act of 1993 as she had more than two living children and the third child was born on 12-9-2001 i.e., after 26th day of January 2001. It was further argued that no objection was raised that requisite security deposit as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 has not been deposited by the election petitioner alongwith election petition. The petitioner also did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence in support of her defence. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Election Tribunal can not be faulted. The other respondent Nos. 3 to 5 did not cause their appearance though they have been served with the notices. The respondent No. 2, in her return, has not disputed non-compliance of Rule 7, as alleged above. From perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties and the order sheets of the Election Tribunal, it is evident that respondent No. 2/election petitioner did not deposit security amount at the time of presentation of the petition. The Tribunal allowed her time for depositing security amount. However, respondent No. 2/election petitioner deposited only Rs. 50/- as security deposit in place of Rs. 500/-.