RAM NARAYAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ram Narayan, having been elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Palana in the elections held on 04.02.2005 is facing an election petition filed by the respondent No.2 Goverdhan Singh (referred herein as the election petitioner) submitted fundamentally on the ground that the election petitioner filled up his nomination to contest the said election but a fabricated withdrawal notice was submitted to the Returning Officer and on that basis he was deprived to contest the election. The present petitioner has filed reply to the election petition refuting the allegations and has submitted that the election petitioner himself has submitted the notice for withdrawal in two copies to the Returning Officer one of which was pasted on the Notice Board; and the election petitioner having withdrawn his candidature, he was rightly not included in the list of candidates.

(2.) From the material placed on record, it appears that the election petition has already been put to trial and evidence of the parties has also been recorded. However, the election petitioner submitted an application (Annex.8) on 21.02.2006 before the learned District Judge, Bikaner trying the election petition with the submissions that he has got exhibited the certified copy of the alleged withdrawal notice as Ex.5; and with reference to the reply averments and the statements made during the trial, it was pointed out that the respondent to the election petition (i.e. the present petitioner) has attempted to establish that a copy of the withdrawal notice was exhibited on the Notice Board. The election petitioner submitted that on 18.02.2006 he applied for certified copy of the withdrawal notice and though earlier he was supplied only one certified copy but now he has been supplied certified copies of both the copies (of withdrawal notice) and they being the certified copies from public record are not fabricated or manipulated and for the effective determination of the petition, these certified copies deserve to be taken on record. The application was duly replied by the petitioner (Annex.9) with the submissions that the matter was already fixed for final arguments and no new document could be produced at this stage.

(3.) The learned District Judge, after considering the submissions of the parties, observed that a copy of the documents sought to be produced had already been produced as Ex.5; and now it was stated that both the copies (of withdrawal notice) were attached in the official record and certified copies of both such copies were sought to be submitted; and they were not likely to be fabricated. Learned District Judge was of opinion that these documents were relevant for disposal of the matter and deserve to be permitted in the interest of justice and, accordingly, allowed the application but on costs of Rs.200/- and at the same time permitted the petitioner to adduce rebuttal evidence after the documents were exhibited. The petitioner seeks to challenge this order dated 23.03.2006 (Annex. 10) in the present writ petition.