MOHAN LAL Vs. NATHU LAL JANGID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dtd. 4/2/2019 of learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by respondent Nathu Lal Jangid has been allowed, wherein challenge was made to the judgment and decree dtd. 3/8/2018 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 21, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, (the Election Tribunal) allowing the Election Petition No. 05/2018 filed by appellant Mohan Lal Saini and set-aside the election of the respondent Nathu Lal Jangid as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shriram-ki-Nagal, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent contested the election to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Shriram-ki-Nagal, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The election was held on 24/1/2015. The respondent secured 802 votes and the appellant secured 742 votes and therefore the respondent was declared elected by margin of 60 votes. It was alleged that the respondent (returned candidate) in the nomination form submitted on proforma No. 4(T) under Rules 25 and 58 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 had declared that as on 27/4/1994 he had four issues, namely, Kaushlya Devi born on 10/10/1983, Shankar Lal Jangid born on 16/9/1987, Jyoti Jangid born on 16/7/1988 and Shambhu Dayal Jangid born on 12/5/1992. The respondent declared that one more issue Kanhaiyalal was born to his wife in between 27/4/1994 and 27/11/1995, but the actual date of birth of Kanhaiyalal, son of respondent (returned candidate) was 8/10/1997, which was entered in the Secondary School Certificate with Roll No. 114208, wherein name of respondent Nathu Lal Jangid has been recorded as father of Kanhaiyalal along with name of his wife. The allegation therefore was that the respondent has by preparing a forged document filled in the nomination form for election to the office of Sarpanch and was eventually elected. Though the respondent contested the matter but the learned Election Tribunal by order dtd. 3/8/2018 allowed the election petition of the appellant. The respondent preferred writ petition against the order of the Election Tribunal, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order. Hence this special appeal.

(3.) Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the respondent has wrongly shown the date of birth of his son Kanhaiyalal as 30/8/1994, whereas his correct date of birth is 8/10/1997, which is proved from the marks-sheet of Kanhaiyalal issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education and that the respondent had submitted false affidavit and therefore his election was liable to be set aside.