Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1302 (RAJ)

Chet Ram v. Gorishanker

2008-05-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of the order Annex. 13 dated 28.03.2008 passed by the respondent No. 4 the Election Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Tribunal" hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Carefully gone through the order under challenge Annex. 13 dated 28.03.2008 as also the other materials placed on record. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time of filing the nomination by the respondent No.1 who is the elected Sarpanch, he had four issues and, therefore, he was not eligible to contest the election of the Sarpanch. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the document Annx.7 issued by the Medical, Health and Family Welfare Services, Female Sterlisation Case Card, was placed before the Tribunal, wherein it has been shown that Santro W/o respondent No.1 Gori Shanker, at the time of sterlization, stated that she had two male sons and two female daughters and all are alive. 4. Admittedly, the original of Annx.7 has not been placed on record before the Tribunal and the author of the said certificate has not been produced. Merely because the document has been exhibited, whether it can be said to be admissible in evidence, has been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the document is not admissible in evidence unless proved by its author. It has not been proved in accordance with law by the petitioners before the Tribunal. 5. The respondent No.1 specifically came with the case that Santro earlier married to his elder brother and from that wed-lock, she had issues, however after the death of his elder brother, the respondent No.1 married to Santro and from that wed-lock, there had been two issues, one male and another female and, therefore, at the time of filing the nomination, the respondent No.1 had two issues, one male and another female. 6. The petitioner has filed the ration card of the respondent No. 1 showing therein that the respondent No.1 had only two issues, one son and another daughter named in the ration card. 6. The petitioner has filed the ration card of the respondent No. 1 showing therein that the respondent No.1 had only two issues, one son and another daughter named in the ration card. This fact has been admitted by petitioner Chet Ram in his statement before the Tribunal that he had filed the ration card of respondent No.1 which shows that the respondent No.1 has two issues, one male and another female. He has also admitted that the wife of respondent No.1 Santro was earlier married to the elder brother of respondent No.1, the elder brother of the respondent No.1 subsequently died and at the time of death of her earlier husband, she was pregnant and thereafter gave birth to a child. 7. The document Annx.6 is in respect of pregnancy of ladies, the services render to them by the authorities concerned, which shows that Santro, at the relevant time, was having three issues and was pregnant. The three issues have been explained by the respondent No.1 that two were from the wed-lock of Santro with the respondent No.1 and one from her earlier husband. There is absolutely no evidence that after Annx.6, Santro gave birth to a child or not. 8. Considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to established by reliable evidence that on the relevant date of filing the nomination by the respondent No. 1, he had more than two alive issues and accordingly decided issue No.1 against the petitioners. 9. While deciding issue No.3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the election petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. The limitation provided for filing the election petition is within one month from the date of declaration of the result. In the instant case, the result of the election was declared on 31.01.2005 and the election petition was filed on 24.03.2005, i.e. after expiry of the period of limitation. The petitioners tried to explain the delay by stating in the election petition that the delay has occasioned on account of obtaining the relevant documents for filing the election petition; however PW 1 Chet Ram himself admitted in his statement on oath that all the documents which have been filed along with the election petition, were available with him at the time of raising the objection before the Election Officer at the lime of considering the nominations. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons given for filing the election petition beyond period of limitation and seeking condonation of delay are contrary to the statement of PW 1 Chet Ram himself and consequently dismissed the election petition. 10. In my view, the impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any error, illegality or perversity requiring interference. The petitioners failed to show as to how the impugned order is illegal. 11. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******