SURAJRAM Vs. COLLECTOR GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Surajram against an order of the Collector, Ganganagar, setting aside his election to the office of Sarpanch of Kalsisar Panchayat under Rule 19 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was not, able to read and write Hindi.

(2.) THE election petition was filed by Bhuraram, respondent No. 2, who contested the election for the office of Sarpanch, but was defeated. THE Collector did not declare him to be duly elected as he found that he too was not able to read and write Hindi. THE ground taken in the petition is that Bhuraram himself not being qualified to be elected as a Sarpanch could not file an election petition under rule 19. Reliance was placed on the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohanlal Kothari vs. Mabboob (1) to the following effect - "the election of a person to any post or office should not be lightly disturbed. . . . . . . . . . . . . THE public policy, therefore, also requires that an election should not be lightly disturbed. THEse considerations are such as impel me to say that the expression 'candidate' must be given restricted meaning in sec. 19 (1) and should mean a person who fulfils the qualification of being a candidate under the Act and the Rules. This appears also to be the intention of the Legislature. Under sec. 19 (1) the right to file an election petition is given to a candidate who stood for election or to ten persons qualified to vote at that election. THE right is not given to a man in the street or even to a single voter. Ten voters must act jointly to file the election petition. This shows that the legislature intended to restrict the right. Now the person who is not qualified to stand as a candidate is no more than a voter if he is so. He alone has no right to file an election petition. Can it be taken that he has been given a right to file an election petition simply because he had filed a nomination paper to contest the election ? In my humble opinion this should not be, otherwise it will make the provisions often persons jointly filing the writ petition as merely nugatory. THE word 'candidate' should receive a restricted meaning in sec. 19 (1) and should mean a person who fulfils the conditions precedent for standing for an election. " THE above case related to a municipal election. THE provision of rule 19 of the Panchayat Election Rules is similar. It lays down that the validity of the election may be challenged by a petition presented by a defeated candidate or by any ten duly qualified electors.