KIRAN KANWAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10. 11. 2006 (Annex. 4) passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner in election petition preferred by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner, who was declared elected on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jhajhu by a margin of six votes.

(2.) IN the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhajhu. The said election was held on 21. 1. 2005 and on the same day result of election was declared in which petitioner was declared elected as he got highest number of votes, more specifically petitioner got 1562 votes, whereas respondent nos. 3 and 4 got 1271 and 1556 votes respectively. Further, it is stated that 123 votes were declared invalid.

(3.) IT is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material evidence or ground in the election petition that alleged corrupt practice was committed with the consent of petitioner, therefore, in absence of specific allegation of corrupt practice, which was said to be committed by the supporters of petitioner with her consent, no election petition can be entertained because consent of the candidate is essential ingredient in cases of corrupt practice and in absence of which, the charge of corrupt practice cannot be sustained. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, Election Tribunal has acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that proof regarding corrupt practice in the case where election of Gram Panchayat is under challenge is not too strict as it is required under the Representation of People Act, 1951. In this regard it is submitted that said finding given by Election Tribunal is absolutely without jurisdiction as the burden of proving the charge of corrupt practice is equally applicable on a person challenging the election of a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat as it is in the case relating to election under Representation of People Act, 1951, therefore, it is obvious that the Election Tribunal has acted in mechanical manner and decided issue no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 3. IT is, therefore, prayed that writ petition may be allowed and order impugned may be set aside.