RAM SINGH Vs. PARAM RAM AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of a decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, district Barabanki, allowing an election petition.

(2.) The petitioner, the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent filed their nomination papers for the election to the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. The returning Officer accepted all the nomination papers and a polling took place on the 14th Dec. 1955. The petitioner received the largest number of votes and was declared to be a duly elected Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The 1st respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner mainly on the grounds that the petitioner was not qualified for being elected as the Pradhan and that an additional list of voters was duly added in the register but the Presiding Officer did not permit the voters, entered in this list, to cast their votes. The Sub-Divisional Officer held on the first point that the petitioner was born on the 3rd Dec. 1925 and had not attained the age of 30 years on the date of the filing of the nomination paper, that is 26th Nov. 1955, and he was not qualified to be chosen as the Pradhan. He did not consider the second objection of the 1st respondent and allowed the election petition setting aside the election of the petitioner and declaring a casual vacancy in the office.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that, according to the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner had attained the age of 30 years on the date of the polling and he should, therefore, have been held to be qualified for election to the office. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that the petitioner should have been qualified to be elected on the date of the nomination and on that date he had not attained the age of 30 years. I do not find any apparent error in this opinion of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is true that Sec. 5B of the Panchayat Raj Act is to the effect that a member of a Gaon Sabha shall not be qualified to be chosen as Pradhan unless he is not less than 30 years of age, and it does not mention that he "should be of that age Even on the date of the nomination; but as is well known the word 'election' sometimes includes the entire proceedings which have to be gone through before a person is declared elected to an office, and I think that is the meaning which is to be attached to the word 'chosen' in Sec. 5-B of the Act. Certain rules have been framed as regards the filing of nomination papers. After the papers have been filed, there is to be a scrutiny of those papers and Rule 18C, Sub-rule (2) says that the Returning Officer may reject any nomination paper on any one or more of the grounds mentioned in the sub-rule. The first ground given is in Clause (a) and it is regarding the qualification of the candidate to be chosen to fill the seat. If the candidate is found not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat, the nomination paper is to be rejected. Generally in elections, a candidate has to be qualified to be elected to an office on the date he files his nomination papers, and I see no reason for holding that the position under the Panchayat Raj Act is different. Sec. 5B of the Act has used the word 'chosen' and the same word has been used in Rule 18C(2)(a). The Returning Officer is authorised to reject the nomination paper if the candidate was pot qualified to be chosen to the office. Obviously when he proceeds to consider this matter, he has to consider it on the date that he is scrutinising the nomination papers.