FARSUBHAI MULJIBHAI GOKALANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a social worker and also member of District Panchayat, Patan has filed this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent No. 2, an elected Member of Legislative Assembly of State of Gujarat from Vav constituency and also Minister of State in the Cabinet of the State of Gujarat holding portfolio of Urban Housing [Independent charge], Health and Family Welfare and Transport, to produce original certificates regarding his degree of Higher Secondary Education [HSC] examination as well as Master of Business Administration, on the basis of which he filed affidavit before the Election Commission, while filing his nomination from Vav Constituency for the election of Member of Legislative Assembly in the year 2012. Inter alia, it is prayed that mandamus be issued directing the respondent No. 3 - State Election Commission or the respondent No. 4 - Police authority to register FIR against respondent No. 2 for committing an offence under Sec. 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 or under Sec. 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further to make inquiry in this regard.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has declared certain facts in view of provisions of Rule 4A of 'Conduct of Election Rules, 1961' and order No. 3/ER/2003 dtd. 27/3/2003 issued by the Election Commission of India whereby a candidate is to submit affidavit in support of certain disclosure of information, including education qualifications, assets and liabilities, criminal cases, etc. in which passing of HSC examination by respondent No. 2 was in the year 1987 as per the examination conducted by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board. This disclosure was made by respondent No. 2 in the earlier election, which was held in the year 2007 and affidavit was filed. In the next election, which was held in the year 2012 the respondent No. 2 filed his candidature from the Vav constituency and information's were declared as required in his affidavit on 30/11/2012 whereby passing of HSC Examination by respondent No. 2 was in July, 2011. That the above declaration of passing HSC by respondent No. 2 in one subject in the year March, 2011 and another subject in July, 2011 was also doubtful. Besides, obtaining Master of Business Administration [for short, 'MBA'] degree from National Institution of Management [for short, 'NIM'] by respondent No. 2 was highly suspicious and it was impossible for respondent No. 2 to obtain MBA degree within a year of passing his HSC examination in July, 2011, as mentioned in the affidavit dtd. 30/11/2012. Further, credentials of NIM was doubtful and even criminal cases came to be registered against NIM as per newspaper report and detailed investigation was carried out. Therefore, in all probabilities, MBA degree availed by respondent No. 2 from NIM was a fake degree and representations were made to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat and also to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Gujarat State and Chief Election Commission, but no decision is taken much less an inquiry is ordered, and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Ruchir Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that having passed SSC/10th Standard examination by respondent No. 2 in 1987, a false information is submitted by him about his passing HSC examination in the year 2011 and availing MBA degree in the year 2012. Ordinarily, MBA degree is a post graduation course conferred upon a candidate after completion of two years course and in view of several proceedings, including criminal proceedings initiated against NIM, a private institute, of selling degree certificates and mark sheets and recovery of such certificates, it appears that the respondent No. 2 has obtained MBA degree by using his influence as an Elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. It is, therefore, necessary that directions be issued to respondent No. 2 to produce the said documents including original degree certificates on record of the petition. Besides, earlier in the year 2007, the respondent No. 2 was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and being MLA, it was doubtful as how it was possible for him to attend classes and to appear in HSC examinations. The sequences, as above would show that educational qualifications of respondent No. 2 are highly doubtful and respondent No. 2 has filed a false affidavit and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 125A of The Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short, 'the Act, 1951'] and for disclosing such false information by respondent No. 2, which he knew or had reason to believe to be false and has concealed the information relating to his real educational qualification in his nomination papers filed under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 33 or in his affidavit which was required to be filed under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 33A of the Act, 1951 and the respondent No. 2 has committed offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Further, even the respondent No. 2 is also guilty of offence under Sec. 191 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence with regard to his educational qualifications. The above strong suspicion by the petitioner can prima facie be looked into and as respondent No. 2 is having criminal record, a case is made out to grant prayer made in this petition.