Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 969 (ALL)

Gurmej Singh alias Gajja Singh v. Civil Judge

1984-11-20

S.D.AGARWALA

body1984
JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J.- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : The dispute relates to the election of a Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Patrampur, Tahsil Kashipur, District Nainital. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 filed their nominations for the election of a pradhan. The election was held and ultimately, on 5th June, 1982 the petitioner Gurmej Singh alias Gajja Singh was duly elected. Kallu Singh, respondent No. 3, who was the only other candidate, lost the election. After the declaration of the result of the election, Kallu Singh filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner Gurmej Singh. This election petition was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kashipur, Nainital. The main ground which was taken for challenging the election petition was that the petitioner was less than 30 years of age at the time of filing of the nomination. The Sub-Divisional Officer upheld, the contention of respondent No. 3 by order dated 30th June, 1983, and set aside the election of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision, which came up before the Civil Judge, Nainital, which was also dismissed by an order dated 19th August, 1983. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. 3. Under Section 5-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, it has been specifically laid down that a member of the Gaon Sabha shall not be qualified to be chosen as a pradhan unless he is not less than 30 years of Age. The parties led evidence before Election Tribunal. After considering the evidence on the record, the Election Tribunal recorded a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner was less than 30 years of age and, as such, set aside the election and declared the respondent No. 3, Kallu Singh, to be the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. 4. The revisional court also prima facie examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Election Tribunal was not vitiated on account of any illegality or irregularity and, as such, maintained the order of the Election Tribunal. 5. 4. The revisional court also prima facie examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Election Tribunal was not vitiated on account of any illegality or irregularity and, as such, maintained the order of the Election Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding on the ground that the Election Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the evidence filed on the record and, as such, has erred in holding that the petitioner was less than 30 years of age on the date of filing of the nomination paper. It is always open to the Election Tribunal to come to a conclusion after examining the record. It is within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to record a finding on the basis of the evidence on the record. It cannot be said merely because another view was possible that the finding is vitiated in law. The Election Tribunal as well as the revisional court have both recorded a finding that the petitioner was less than 30 years of age. I do not find any manifest error of law in this finding. 6. It has been further urged that the order passed by the Election Tribunal declaring Kallu Singh, respondent No. 3, to be elected, was an erroneous exercise of discretion on the part of the Election Tribunal. Reliance has been placed in this connection on Rule 25 (3) (b) of the Rules framed under the Act. The above provision clearly lays down that it is open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to declare another candidate to have been duly elected which ever course appears in the circumstances of the case to be appropriate provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless a claim for it has been made in the application in the instant case, I have examined the application moved by Kallu Singh. In the application, it has been categorically claimed that he is entitled to be declared as elected pradhan. It is not disputed that only two candidates contested the election, namely, the petitioner and Kallu Singh, respondent No. 3. the petitioner being less than 30 years of age could not contest the election and, as such, the only candidate who remained in the field was Kallu Singh, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Election Tribunal was in any manner perverse or unreasonable. the petitioner being less than 30 years of age could not contest the election and, as such, the only candidate who remained in the field was Kallu Singh, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Election Tribunal was in any manner perverse or unreasonable. In my opinion, therefore, the Election Tribunal rightly declared the respondent No. 3 as the duly elected candidate. In the absence of the petitioner, no other person would remain to contest the election. 7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no error of law in both the impugned orders. The petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.