S GANGADHAR GOUD Vs. CHIKKELA LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTION to the Jankampet Gram panchayat of Nizambad District Was held in the year 2006. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 filed nominations for the office of sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed O. P. No. 2 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge. Bodhan, challenging the election of the petitioner, on the ground that the latter incurred dis qualification under section 19 (3) of the a. P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the panchayat Raj Act ). It was alleged that the petitioner gave birth to third child on 26-03-1997, and thereby incurred disqualification. It was also mentioned that on an earlier occasion me petitioner filed nomination for the office of Mandai Parishad territorial Constituency (MPTC), and on an objection raised by the 1st respondent, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected, on the ground that he incurred disqualification under Section 19 (3) of the Panchayat Raj act. He pleaded that though a specific objection was raised, the Returning Officer negated the objection.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a counter, denying the allegations made by the 1st respondent. According to him, the third child was born on 12-09-1994. Respondents 2 to 4 also filed counters, supporting the case of the 1st respondent. Through its order dated 02-04-2008. the Tribunal allowed the O. P. , and had set aside the election of the petitioner The 1st respondent was declared as elected, for the office of Sarpanch. Hence this writ peiilicn.

(3.) SRI K. Ramakrishna Reddy. learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the date of birth of the third child of the petitioner was evidenced by ex. A-6. and the contents thereof, proved that the petitioner did not incur any disqualification, at aii. He contends that the tribunal was mostly impressed by the fact that the petitioner did not enter the witness box, and that the necessity for the petitioner to adduce any crol evidence did not exist. in view of the facts, that are evident from the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent himself. Learned Senior Counsel sibmits that, being a certificate issued under a statute, Ex. A-6 was the conclusive proof of the date of birth of the child, and that the order passed in the O. P. cannot be sustained in law.