SUDHAKAR REDDY Vs. TIPNNA KESAB REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the Appellant has challenged legality of the judgment dated 01.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2599 of 2009 on the ground that the same has been decided on the basis of wrong interpretation of the statute. The learned Single Judge quashed the impugned judgments passed by the Election Tribunal as well as the appellate authority and directed that Respondent No. 1 shall continue as the elected Sarpanch of Ekasinghi Grama Panchayat in the district of Ganjam.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are that the present Appellant along with Respondent No. 1 filed nomination papers for contesting the election to the office of Sarpanch of Ekasinghi Grama Panchayat in the district of Ganjam. At the time of filing of nomination paper, the present Appellant filed an objection before the Election Officer stating that Respondent No. 1 has not attained the age of 21 years and thus, he was not eligible to contest the election, but such objection was ignored by the Election Officer and nomination paper of Respondent No. 1 was accepted. Since, Respondent No. 1 had secured more votes than the Appellant, he was declared elected. The Appellant filed Election Petition No. 2 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Berhampur seeking declaration of the election of Respondent No. 1 as void and for declaring the Appellant as Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. The Appellant in support of his claim relied upon the certificate granted to Respondent No. 1 by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa in the High School Certificate Examination for proving his date of birth as 25.05.1986 and as such, according to the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 was 20 years 7 months and 15 days old on the date of filing of the nomination paper. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, claimed that he was born on 08.07.1984 and was admitted in a Project Upper Primary School on 08.11.1989 and while continuing his studies in Class -II, left the school on 30.04.1992 and was admitted in a school at Bhubaneswar. He was again brought back to village Parapentho and was admitted in Biswanthpur Chhaka Upper Primary School in Class -III on 10.07.1993 by mentioning his date of birth as 03.05.1985. His further case is that the date of birth i.e. 25.05.1986 cannot be acceptable as his mother had undergone a family planning operation on 21.12.1984 in the Public Health Centre at Keluha Palli vide entry No. 300 dated 21.12.1984. On the basis of the voter's list the Election Officer held Respondent No. 1 eligible to contest the election. The voter list has been prepared in accordance with law and no objection was raised during preparation of the same.

(3.) MR . R.K. Rath, learned senior advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 strongly supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It was vehemently contended that the mother of Respondent No. 1 had undergone family planning operation in December, 1984 and therefore, at no stretch of imagination it can be believed that the elected candidate was born in the year 1986. Relying upon the decisions of the apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and Ors. : AIR 2005 SC 3280 Mr. Rath contended that the failure of family planning operation has not been proved. Both the Trial court as well as the appellate court have mechanically accepted the stand taken by the writ Appellant without any supporting evidence.