BHADAR RAM Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 29 DWD on 31. 1. 2000. An objection was taken before the Returning Officer that in view of provisions of Sec. 19 (1) (iv) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the petitioner was not qualified to be a candidate at election because he is father of five children. Two of them have been born after 27. 11. 1995, a date after which any offspring in addition to two children has been construed to be a disqualification for being candidate at election. THE Returning Officer did not re-act to the objection and accepted the nomination paper of the petitioner. At the election, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. After election, an election petition was filed challenging the election of the petitioner by respondent No. 1 Sant Ram. In this election petition, trial was held and after trial Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that two of the offspring of the petitioner had taken birth after 27. 11. 1995, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to be elected as Sarpanch.

(2.) IN its decision on the election petition, the Election Tribunal has considered that election petitioner has produced evidence to the effect that there are five children born to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to contest the election of Sarpanch. The election petitioner had raised objection before the Returning Officer but Returning Officer ignored all the evidence produced before him for disqualifying the petitioner for contesting the election.

(3.) THE document Ex. 6a which is Annex. P/7 with the writ petition shows that when father is 22 years and mother is 20 years, how could the petitioner born five children. THEse documents are incongruous. Witnesses Baldev Singh and Uma Devi were inimical and therefore they should not be believed. THE petitioner has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Courts to support his contention. He has relied on (Laxman Siddappa Naik vs. Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna) (1), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that election petitioner cannot succeed because of the weakness of the successful candidate. Before any election is set aside, there must be convincing proof. THE burden on the election petitioner, unless election petitioner discharges his burden, he cannot succeed.