RAMDHAN MEENA Vs. BHAJAN LAL MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2017 passed by Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Dausa, whereby the election of the petitioner-Returned Candidate (hereafter 'the RC') as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hapawas, District Dausa has been quashed and set-aside by the trial court on the ground of his having fathered a third child, one Manisha on 20.8.2001 subsequent to the cut off date of 27.11.1995 and been rendered ineligible to contest on the post of Sarpanch under the proviso to Section 19(l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter 'the Act of 1994').

(2.) That the RC had fathered two children one Mamraj on 1.7.1997 and Deshraj on 11.2.1999 was admitted. Aside of the aforesaid, the trial court, on the documentary evidence laid at the instance of the respondent-Election Petitioner (hereafter 'the EP') i.e. Manisha's admission form under her mother's thumb impression giving out the RC as her father submitted to the Government Girls Secondary School, Hapawas, District Dausa (hereafter 'school'), which was Ex.-4 before it as also Ex. 5A/1 the scholar register from the school both duly proved by the evidence of PW-5 Geeta Kankhediya, Principal of School, has held, after reckoning for the RC's defence evidence, that Manisha was the RC's third child born on 20.8.2001 rendering him ineligible to contest and yet having so contested his election was liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Bansal appearing for the RC submitted that Ex.-4 and Ex.5A/1, the admission form of Manisha Meena and her scholar register from the school, albeit proved by PW-5 Geeta Kankhediya, by themselves were not determinative of her being the RC's daughter in the context of competing evidences on record laid by RC such as Ex./A5 mark sheet of Class-IX pertaining to the academic session 2016-17, also issued by Government Adarsh Girls Secondary School, Hapawas which showed Manisha Meena as the daughter of Chouthmal Meena and Lohadisi Devi and not of the RC and his wife Manohari. That mark-sheet was also signed in verification by the Principal of the school - Smt. Geeta Devi Kankhediya, who purportedly proved Ex.-4. Further Mr. Ashok Bansal drew the attention of the Court to Ex.A-/6 issued by the office of Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan on 12.2.2013, where Manisha Meena was again shown as the daughter of Chouthmal and Lohadisi Devi and not the RC and Manohari. Reference was made to Ex.A/7 caste certificate issued to Manisha Meena on 22.7.2014 by Tehsildar, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, which also showed her as the daughter of Chouthmal Meena and Lohadisi Devi. Mr. Ashok Bansal submitted that Ex.A/8 elementary education certificate issued at the end of academic session 2015-16 to Manisha Meena also showed her as the daughter of Chouth Mal and Lohadisi Devi. Reliance was also placed on the birth certificate issued on 20.4.2009 by the Registrar, Births and Deaths based on registration of birth on 16.4.2009 to contend that Manisha Meena was not the daughter of RC, but of Chauthmal and Lohdisi Devi. Mr. Ashok Bansal emphatically submitted that the trial court overlooked the aforesaid evidence in favour of RC and instead arbitrarily relied on the evidence of PW-5 and Ex.-4 and Ex.-5A/1 produced and relied upon by the EP to come to perverse finding of the RC's ineligibility.