CHAUHAN RAJENDRASINHJI TAKHATSINHJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in these three petitions is identical. The facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 11 of 1976 briefly stated are as follows. The petitioner was a voter at the elections to Wav Taluka Panchayat in Banaskantha District. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were candidates. Nomination paper of respondent 3 was challenged at the time of the scrutiny on the ground that his proposer Vanol Kala Vaja was illiterate and had affixed his thumb impression which was not attested by the Returning Officer though it was identified by some other witness. This objection was raised by respondent 4. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and upheld the validity of the nomination paper. It is that order which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) The facts of the case in Special Civil Application No 13 of 1976 briefly stated are as follows. Respondents 3 and 4 were candidates at the elections to Wav Taluka Panchayat. The nomination paper of Laxmiben Muljibhai respondent No. 3 was challenged by respondent No. 4 at the time of scrutiny on the ground that her proposer Mehaji Valabhai who was illiterate had affixed his thumb impression which was not attested by the Returning Officer though it was identified by another witness. This objection was rejected and validity of the nomination paper was upheld. It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) The facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 14 of 1976 briefly stated are as under: Respondents 3 and 4 were candidates at elections to Wav Taluka Panchayat. The nomination of respondent No. 3 Vaghela Somji Hathising was challenged on the ground that the thumb impression of the candidate himself who was illiterate was not attested by the Returning Officer though it was identified by another witness. This objection was raised by respondent No. 4. It was rejected by the Returning Officer who upheld the validity of nomination paper of respondent No. 3 It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.