Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 20 (RAJ)

Rukmani Devi v. Sita

2018-01-02

M.N.BHANDARI

body2018
ORDER : Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18th September, 2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, District Dausa, whereby, the election petition filed by the non-petitioner No.1 has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without evidence disputing the qualification of the non-petitioner, the election petition preferred by the non-petitioner against election on the post of Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Malwas has been allowed. The petitioner is in possession of qualification required for contesting the election of Sarpanch. In view of the above, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference of transfer certificate of the school at Annexure - 4 to show that the petitioner possessed the qualification of class 8th from Happy Field Public School at Delhi. The other documents referred by the petitioner is at Annexure - 6 where the Principal of the School had endorsed the documents showing qualification of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a further reference of the application form at Annexure - 8. Ignoring the documents aforesaid, finding has been recorded by the court below. It is even in ignorance of the fact that the non-petitioner-plaintiff had failed to produce Principal of the school to prove that neither transfer certificate nor any other document was issued by him. It is further stated that Officer of the Education Department was not having authority to make statement about existence of school at Delhi. An Officer of the Education Department of State of Rajasthan can make statement about existence of school only if it is within his jurisdiction and not for the school outside the State of Rajasthan. The Court below has yet relied on the statement and the other evidence to record finding against the petitioner for acceptance of the election petition preferred by the non-petitioner. For the aforesaid reason also, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Other than aforesaid, no other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Court below. It is submitted that the documents submitted by the non-petitioner were sufficient to prove that the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification. 5. Other than aforesaid, no other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Court below. It is submitted that the documents submitted by the non-petitioner were sufficient to prove that the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification. As per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as amended, a candidate is required to possess qualification of 8th to contest the election of Sarpanch. Since, the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification, a false declaration was made to contest the election. The non-petitioner preferred an election petition and produced evidence to prove declaration made by the petitioner about qualification to be false. A criminal case was also registered against the Principal of school, who had issued the certificate fraudulently. The Court below has not relied on the documents pertaining to lodging of criminal case, but, according to them, it cannot be said to be a waste paper also. The charge sheet in the criminal case has already been filed. 7. So far as the transfer certificate at Annexure - 4 is concerned, it has overwriting in the year because the year 2000 has been overwritten as 1976-77. The fact aforesaid has been taken note by the court below. The Officer of the Education Department has been produced to show that Happy Field Public School was not existing at the time when the petitioner alleged to have taken qualification of class 8th. Taking into consideration the fact aforesaid and evidence to prove the case, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner to challenge the impugned order herein deserves to be set aside. 8. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is a case where the petitioner and non-petitioner contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Malwas. As per the amended provisions of the Act of 1994, a candidate was required to possess qualification of class 08th to contest the election. The petitioner declared her qualification of class 08th while submitting nomination form. She was declared elected, but, the non-petitioner challenged the election by filing an election petition. It was mainly on the ground that declaration about qualification by the petitioner was false. Both the parties led their evidence to prove the case. The petitioner declared her qualification of class 08th while submitting nomination form. She was declared elected, but, the non-petitioner challenged the election by filing an election petition. It was mainly on the ground that declaration about qualification by the petitioner was false. Both the parties led their evidence to prove the case. The Court below, after making scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of required qualification. The election petition was accordingly allowed and as the non-petitioner was the only candidate left out of the election thus declared elected. 10. The petitioner has relied upon the document at Annexure - 4 to show her qualification. The transfer certificate shows overwriting and, otherwise, no document was produced by the petitioner to show marks in class 08th or other document other than the aforesaid. It is stated to be old document thus not in possession of the petitioner, but, the conduct of the Principal of the school, who is said to have issued transaction certificate is also relevant. Two documents were issued by one and the same person on 18th February, 2015. The first document endorses transfer certificate and other is denying it. The signatures on two documents are different, if compared with Annexures 4 and 8 of the writ petition. The signatures at Annexure - 5 resemble with signature at Annexures - 4 and 8, however, at this stage, I am not going in the issue as to whether the signature of the Principal are fraudulent or not. It is for the reason that a criminal case has already been registered where charge sheet has been filed after investigation. The petitioner as well as the non-petitioner did not produce Principal to prove their rival case. It is moreso when, the petitioner produced transfer certificate showing qualification of class 08th but did not produce author of the documents to verify the aforesaid. No doubt, it is true that even the respondents failed to produce Principal, but, from the proceedings of the trial Court, it is coming out that the petitioner sought time to produce the Principal of the school, but, later on he was not produced. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and as there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the court below, I do not any reason to cause interference in the impugned order. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and as there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the court below, I do not any reason to cause interference in the impugned order. It is more so when, other than the arguments referred above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any other argument. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, hence, it is dismissed.