SHAHJAD BANO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Smt. Shahjad Bano, who is a lady Sarpanch, has challenged in this petition the passing of no confidence motion against her in the meeting held on 30. 9. 99 on several grounds. One of the main grounds is that the Addl. Chief Executive Officer was not competent and that the application was not moved in proper form. One more ground was raised in para No. 10 of the petition namely that some members were kidnapped and they were brought to the spot of meeting under police custody and the presiding officer himself has taken ballot papers and marked the same and put in the ballot box as per the his choice, thereby, the members were not allowed to cast their votes freely and voluntarily.

(2.) AT the time of commencement of hearing of this petition, learned Addl. Advocate General Shri R. L. Jangid appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection namely that the petitioner has made a deliberate false statement in para No. 10 of her petition. He, therefore, submitted that this petition should be dismissed straightway without going into the merits of the case only on this ground of making false statement on oath in the petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the averments made in para No. 10 of the petition cannot be said to be false or incorrect. He also submitted that even if some incorrect statement is made in the petition then the same should not come in the way of the petitioner to decide the matter on merits. He submitted that in this petition three most important questions of law are involved namely that; (i) the Addl. Chief Executive Officer was not competent, (ii) the application to pass `no confidence motion' against the petitioner was not in a proper form and (iii) the appointment of S. D. O. as Presiding Officer was also not proper. He, therefore, submitted that this Court should ignore such trivial preliminary objection raised by the other side and decide the matter on merits particularly when it is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by not only the Judgment of this Court but also by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that the petitioner was almost illiterate lady and, therefore, if she has submitted any such application at Annex. 3 it should not go against the petitioner. He also submitted that if some averments are made in para No. 10 of the petition because of mistake of Advocate then it should not go against the petitioner and the Court should do substantial justice and it should not throw out the petition on such a technical ground raised by other side.