ANITA Vs. INDRAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties. Facts in short giving rise to this writ petition are as follows : Election for the office of the President of the Nagar Panchayat Pipiganj, tehsil Campariganj, District Gorakhpur was held in the year 2006. The writ petitioner as well as the contesting respondent Indrawati alongwith other persons contested the said elections. The petitioner Anita was declared elected after counting on 6.11.2006. The election of Anita was challenged by means of Election Petition No. 4 of 2006 under Section 19/20 of the U. P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam. Amongst other one of the basic issue raised for questioning the election was that the elected candidate was underage on the relevant date and therefore ineligible to contest the elections. The acceptance of her nomination paper was therefore illegal, resulting in material irregularity and therefore the same be set aside.

(2.) THE issue, as to whether on the relevant date the elected candidate was minor, was considered on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. After consideration of material and oral evidence led, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Election Tribunal, that on the date of submission of the nomination paper the candidate Anita had not reached the age of 30 years and therefore she was ineligible to contest the election. Her election was, therefore, declared null and void. THE Election Tribunal thereafter proceeded to declare respondent No. 1 (election petitioner) as the elected candidate having regard to the fact that she had secured the second highest number of vote. Such declaration is stated to have been issued with reference to the judgment of the High Court in the case of Smt. Meenu v. Third Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, 2001 (92) RD 551. This order of the Election Tribunal has been challenged before this Court by means of the present writ petition.

(3.) THE other issue seriously contested and which requires consideration is as to whether the second part of the direction issued under the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the respondent No. 1 as elected on the basis that she had secured second largest number of votes polled is legally justified or not.