M MAHALAKSHMI Vs. S MALATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations contained in the Civil Revision Petition filed by this petitioner under Section 258 and 258 r/w 33(ii) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 are in brief:-

(2.) THE petitioner contested for the post of the President of Sekkanur Village Panchayat, in the election which was held on 30.10.2006, in Electric bulb symbol. THE first respondent also was one among the candidates who contested for the same post. THE petitioner filed nomination paper on 27.09.2006, before the Assistant Returning Officer, who distributed Candidates Guide Book - 6 of 2006, containing the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules. THE first respondent also filed her nomination paper on the same date.2.1. THE petitioner raised objections before the Assistant Returning Officer that the first respondent was only about 18 years of age and as per the guidelines, she is not at all eligible to contest the election. She also brought to the notice of the authority that the first respondent completed her 10th standard during the year 2003 in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Ussoor and during the academic year 2003-05 in the said school she completed her plus I and plus II standards at the age of 17 years and the same can be seen from the admission records of the said school. THE petitioner orally registered her objections before the Assistant Returning Officer that the first respondent was not eligible to file nomination paper. THE first respondent did not produce school certificate with an ulterior motive to suppress her age and misrepresent that she was above 21 years.2. 2. THE petitioner requested the authority to ascertain the actual date of birth or send for the copy of the age proof from the said school, but in vain. THE first respondent also had got admission as a student in Tamil Nadu Mazhalayar Teachers Training School at THEndral Nagar, Sathuvachari, Vellore, where also she had not produced the school certificate. In spite of the objections, the Assistant Returning Officer admitted the nomination papers on 28.09.2006. It is understood that the date of birth of the first respondent is 03.06.1987 whereas she has mentioned in the nomination paper that she completed 21 years. THE first respondent was only 18 years, 4 months and 24 days as on 27.09.2006. In view of the said disqualification of the first respondent, her election as President of Sekkanur may be declared as void and consequently declaring the petitioner as a duly elected President of the said Panchayat.

(3.) COUNTER of fourth respondent, adopted by the fifth respondent, contains the following averments:5.1. The first respondent had filed nomination form duly filled along with school transfer certificate attested copy for proof of age and notary affidavit to show her properties, age and address particulars for the post of President which shows her age as 21 years and she was eligible to contest the election. As per the transfer certificate, her date of birth was 03.06.1985. As on 27.09.2006, she had completed 21 years of age. She has mentioned her age as 21 years in nomination paper. There was no irregularity in admitting her nomination paper. No objection was raised at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper either by the petitioner or her agent or any of the candidates who have contested. Copies of nomination forms along with enclosures were displayed in the notice board of the Village Panchayat Office, Block Development Office and in Collector's Office and no objection was received from the public or from the contesting candidates. Since the petitioner did not raise any objection at the first instance, she is estopped from raising the same at a belated stage. 5. 2. It is denied that she orally objected before the Assistant Returning Officer and there was no written complaint. The election was held peacefully as per rules and regulations and procedures as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and as per the directions of the superior authorities. The petitioner never produced any document to show the age of the first respondent was below 21 years. The petition is bad for non-joinder of State Election Commission and Assistant Returning Officer, hence, the petition is not maintainable in law on facts. So, the petition may be dismissed.