HUKUM SINGH RAJPUT Vs. COLLECTOR PANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 12-6-2000, Annexure P-7, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) -cum-Specified Officer, the respondent No. 2 herein.

(2.) The facts as have been unfurled are that the State Government declared the Panchayat Election to be held in the month of January, 2000 and as consequence thereof, wardwise voters list was prepared. In the voters list of the Gram Panchayat, Imaliya of Ward No. 9 the petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 524 in which it was mentioned that his age was 19 years. The petitioner submitted his nomination form for the post of 'Panch' of the Ward No. 9 of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. As his age was mentioned to be 19 years in the voters list he, with bona fide belief, menitoned his age to be 19 years in the nomination form. At that time he was very much aware that he was 25 years of age but under the impression that the age mentioned in the voters list should be mentioned in the nomination form he filled up the form mentioning the age as per the voters list. The Returning Officer, at the time of scrutiny, had decided to reject the form of the petitioner and at that juncture, he was called upon by the Returning Officer to explain about his age. As averred, the petitioner submitted his marksheet and school leaving certificate before the Returning Officer and satisfied him that his age was 25 years as on that date. The Returning Officer found it to be a clerical error and not of substantial one and accordingly accepted the nomination form of the petitioner. As the petitioner was the only candidate he was declared elected as 'Panch'of the aforesaid Ward. Thereafter he was elected as 'Up Sarpanch' of the Gram Panchayat. At that stage the respondent No. 4 filed an election petition forming the subject-matter of case No. 5/A-89/1999-2000 before the respondent No. 2 alleging that the petitioner was 19 years of age and his nomination form had been erroneously accepted and, therefore, his election was invalid in the eye of law. After receiving the notice the petitioner submitted a detailed reply before the respondent No. 2 contending, inter alia, that his age was wrongly mentioned in the voters list as 19 years and, in fact, he was 25 years of age.Along with his written statement he filed copies of the marksheet and school leaving certificate. The respondent No. 2 without framing any issue and recording any evidence declared that the election of the petitioner was void as the petitioner was not entitled in law to adduce any evidence contrary to the declaration given by him in the nomination form. It is urged in the petition that the Specified Officer has committed gross and grave error by not affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in suport of this age, moreso, when his marksheet was accepted and he was elected as 'Panch'. It is further putforth that when the Returning Officer had accepted the nomination form of the petitioner being satisfied with regard to his age the Specified Officer could not have set aside the election solely on the basis of the declaration in the nomination form inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled in law to substantiate his case to show that the acceptance of his nomination form was valid in law. It is further putforth that the respondent No 4 could not have challenged the election of the petitioner as he did not have the locus standi inasmuch as the rules do not permit such challenge by him more so, when he belongs to a different ward.

(3.) A return has been filed by the answering respondent No. 4 disputing some of the documents, namely, school leaving certificate and the mark-sheet which have been annexed to the petition. The age of the petitioner has also been disputed by the said respondent. It has been stated that when the petitioner had admitted his age to be 19 years the Returning Officer was duty-bound to reject the same and could not have accepted the same as valid. It has been highlighted that the Returning Officer had rejected the nomination form of other persons from other wards on the ground of under-age. It has also been putforth that the petitioner had not produced any document before the Returning Officer to satisfy that he was 25 years old. It has been asserted that the Returning Oficer had no authority to accept the nomination paper which had already been rejected by him. It has been setforth that the petitioner has got himself elected unopposed in collusion with the Returning Officer and thereafter, became 'Up Sarpanch' of the village. It is further stated that as the factual matrix was self revelatory, there was no necessity for framing of issues or adducing of evidence. The Returning Officer had committed gross illegality by accepting the nomination form of the petitioner and as such an action is totally impermissible the Specified Officer is justified in setting aside the election. As far as the locus standi is concerned, it has been putforth by the respondent No. 4 that he had the locus standi to challenge the election of the petitioner as he was a person aggrieved.