GITANJALI BISOI Vs. BIDYULATA MUDULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Election Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th November, 2003 passed in M.J.C. No. 52 of 2002 declaring the Election of the appellant to be illegal, void and unconstitutional and also declaring respondent No. 1 elected as Member, Zilla Parishad, Girila Zone, Kotpad -2.

(2.) THE case of the election -petitioner is that as per the election programme, election was scheduled to be held in the year 2002 and nominations were filed on 21.1.2002. The nomination papers were scrutinized on 22.2.2002 and after the election, results were finally published on 2.3.2003, In the said election, the appellant was declared to have been elected for the post. The case of the election -petitioner is that the appellant was a minor and had not completed 18 years of age and that though such an objection was raised at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, nomination papers were illegally accepted. According to the election -petitioner, unless a candidate attains the age of 21 years, she cannot contest for the election and on that ground alone, the election of the appellant is liable to be set aside. Apart from the above ground, the election -petitioner also took a ground that out of the 300 valid votes polled in the favour of the election -petitioner, counting was not done properly and more than 100 ballot papers were rejected illegally. The further case of the election -petitioner is that she having polled the next highest votes in the said election, the election of the appellant be set aside and she be declared elected for the post. The present appellant filed counter stating that she was aged about 23 years on the date of election and she had completed 22 years of age. According to her, the date of birth is 13.8.1980 and in the voter's list in year 2002, her age has been shown as 22 years. Her further case is that in the School Admission Register her age was reduced by 4 years because of late admission, as there was no school in the village. It was also the case of the appellant that the Admission Register should not be taken to have shown the correct date of birth because of the reasons stated above.

(3.) SHRI Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to the age of the appellant on the ground that in the School Admission Register the date of birth had been purposefully reduced by 4 years as there was no school at that point of time and therefore that should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the age of the appellant at the time of filing of the nomination paper. It was also contended by Shri Mishra that the voter's list, Ext. B and other documents produced on behalf of the appellant clearly indicate that she was above 21 years on the date of filing of nomination paper and there was no reason to discard such evidence and accept the entry made in the School Admission Register to come to a conclusion that the appellant was below the required age on the date of filing of nomination paper. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the School Admission Register is the document on which much reliance can be placed by any Court to ascertain the age of a person and the learned District Judge having done so, there is no illegality in the finding of the learned District Judge that the appellant was below the required age on the date of filing of nomination paper.