DAMYANTIBEN KANUBHAI SINGAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the third respondent the Election and Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the returning officer"), in purported exercise of powers conferred under rule 15 of the Gujarat Panchayats Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") whereby, the nomination form of the petitioner for elections of the Jakhwada Village Panchayat came to be rejected and seeks a direction to the third respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the list of validly declared nominations.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of village Jakhwada, Taluka Viramgam. Elections to the various villages of the Viramgam Taluka were declared by the Assistant Collector, Viramgam Prant, vide a notification dated 05.12.2016. As per the said notification, the last date for filling in the nomination papers was 10.12.2016, the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the candidates was to be carried out on 12.12.2016, the date for withdrawal of nomination papers was 14.12.2016, and the polling was to take place on 27.12.2016. Since 12.12.2016 was declared to be a public holiday, scrutiny was held on 13.12.2016.

(3.) Being desirous of contesting the said elections, the petitioner filed a completed nomination paper in Form No.4 as prescribed under rule 12(1) of the rules on 9.12.2016 which inter alia contained a declaration on affidavit regarding the number of children she had, wherein the petitioner had clearly stated that she has five children and that she does not have more than two children born to her after 23.3.2005. On 13.12.2016, an objection was filed by the fourth respondent Smt. Vilasben Arjanbhai Gohil before the returning officer inter alia contending that as per the notification dated 23.3.2005, the children born after 4.8.2005 are supposed to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the total number of children, and that the petitioner's 5th child Shaileshkumar Kanubhai was born on 7.12.2005 and that therefore, the petitioner's nomination paper is liable to be rejected. Upon receipt of the above objection, on 13.12.2016, the petitioner was informed by the returning officer to give clarification with regard to the number of children exceeding two that the petitioner had given birth to, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the returning officer on 14.12.2016 and submitted a statement and clarified that she has five children, all of whom were born before 3.8.2006, being the cutoff date fixed by the State Government; that the last child was born on 7.12.2005, and therefore, the nomination paper of the petitioner be duly approved. On the said date, the returning officer did not inform the petitioner about anything else and conveyed that the nomination paper of the petitioner would be processed in accordance with law.