TARLOK SINGH Vs. GURMEL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Daad, District Ludhiana, was held on September, 24, 1983. There were only two contesting candidates i.e. the Petitioner Tarlok Singh and Gurmel Singh Respondent. Respondent Gurmel Singh having secured 22 votes more than the Petitioner was declared elected. Though initially there were four candidates, including father of this Respondent, who had filed nomination papers, yet the other two withdrew their nomination papers within the prescribed time. Thus, only two candidates, as already noticed above, remained in the field.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , Tarlok Singh filed a petition under Section 13(o) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, (hereafter the Act), for setting aside the election of Respondent Gurmel Singh on the ground that on the dates of the nominations and election he was under age being less than 25 years of age and was thus not eligible to be a candidate.

(3.) SO far as this petition is concerned i.e. C.W.P. No. 876 of 1985 1 find merit in the same. The principal contention of Shri Ujagar Singh the learned Senior Advocate for Gurmel Singh Respondent is that the birth certificate Exhibit P.2, which has primarily been relied upon by the two Authorities for recording the conclusion that Gurmel Singh was not 25 years of age at the time of nomination or election in question is not admissible in evidence. This submission is based on the further argument that there is not enough evidence on record to show that the birth certificate Exhibit P. 2 relates to Gurmel Singh Respondent, I am afraid, the argument of admissibility of birth certificate Exhibit P. 2, as has been noticed above, is based on the factual finding as to whether it relates to Gurmel Singh or not and this finding, as has been pointed out is not assailable in these proceedings; thus he cannot successfully urge that the certificate in question is not admissible in evidence. It is conceded that the moment it is accepted that this certificate relates to Gurmel Singh Respondent, the argument about its admissibility does not arise at all.