KIRAN DEVI Vs. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, an order of the State Election Commissioner dated 06.06.2013, passed in Election Case No.12/2013, is under challenge. In the impugned order, the Election Commissioner has held that petitioner was disqualified to be elected as Mukhiya, as on the date of nomination she was less than 21 years of age. Hence, he has set aside the election of the petitioner and has directed the post to be held as vacant, to be filled up in accordance with law. He has further directed for institution of an FIR against the petitioner.

(2.) A case was registered in the Election Commission on the complaint of respondent no.5. Taking cognizance of the complaint, the Collector-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Gopalganj, was directed to hold an enquiry and submit a report. Enquiry was accordingly held and it was reported that in her nomination paper, petitioner had mentioned her age as 26 years, whereas, in view of her matriculation certificate, verification report and the report received from the Bihar School Examination Board, she was found to be less than 21 years of age on the date of nomination i.e. on 25.02.2011. Accordingly, notices were issued to the parties, in response to which petitioner appeared through her counsel on 14.05.2013. The matter was thereafter heard and on the basis of unimpeachable documents, it was found that on the date of nomination, petitioner was 20 years 8 months 21 days only. Accordingly, her election was set aside and the post of Mukhiya was held vacant, which was directed to be filled up in accordance with law and an FIR was directed to be instituted, as she had deliberately made a false declaration in her nomination paper that she was 26 years of age.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that age mentioned in the matriculation certificate of petitioner was not sacrosanct. Hence, once her nomination was accepted and she was allowed to contest the election, it was not under legal obligation of the State Election Commissioner to cancel her election on the basis of the matriculation certificate. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vrs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, 1965 AIR(SC) 282 and particularly, on the following observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment :