SIYAWATI Vs. PHOOLWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sagouni on 19-1-2005. An election petition was preferred by the present petitioner on the ground that the last child of respondent No. 1 was born on 27-8-2001 and the respondent No. 1 was thus, disqualified from contesting the election by virtue of clause (m) (1) of Section 36 of M. P. Gram Panchayat Avam Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Secondly, it is contended that respondent No. 1 had in all 9 children whereas only 5 daughters were disclosed in the affidavit containing declaration under Rule 31 (a) of M. P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. On account of false declaration, it is contended that nomination papers of the petitioner were liable to be rejected. They were wrongly accepted and election of respondent no. 1, is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN the return, respondent No. 1 denied the allegation about the birth of last child on 27-8-2001. According to her, last child was born on 5th of december, 2000, however, with regard to the allegation about the contents of declaration it was submitted in the written statement that the respondent No. 1 is an illiterate lady. The declaration was filled up by the third person who was informed by her about having 5 daughters and 4 sons. She pleaded that person filling up the declaration due to inadvertence, and/or confusion entered information merely about five daughters which could not be verified by the respondent No. 1 on account of her illiteracy.

(3.) LEARNED Specified Officer after recording evidence found that the election petitioner has failed to prove that the last child to the respondent No. 1 was born on 27-8-2001. On the contrary, birth of the last child in the year 2000 is held to be duly proved. As regards false declaration, learned Specified Officer observed that the respondent No. 1 being an illiterate lady cannot be blamed for false affidavit in the election petition, more so, because no proceedings were initiated against her about the allegation of false affidavit and no disqualification was earned by her in the absence of any such proceedings and decision therein. Ultimately, the Specified Officer found that the grounds for quashing the election have not been established and rejected the election petition vide impugned order dated 15-9-2006 contained in Annexure P-1. Aggrieved by it, the present writ petition has been preferred wherein Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri M. P. Shukla and Shri Vinod Mehta, learned government Advocate for respective respondents advanced their arguments at length which have been considered in the light of relevant legal provisions as well as material on record.