Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2715 (RAJ)

Lalita v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-07

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2022, whereby the election petition preferred by the respondent No.2 Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Dinesh has been allowed and consequently, the election of the petitioner Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Parsing on the post of Sarpanch has been quashed and set aside. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner had contested the election for Sarpanch and Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Lohariya Bada, Panchayat Samiti Kushalgarh in the year 2020. After the election, the petitioner was declared elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 3. The respondent No.2 Smt. Lalita W/o Shri Dinesh preferred an election petition before the District Judge, Banswara. The same was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Banswara for adjudication. The main contention of the respondent No.2 was that the petitioner had given birth to the first child in the year 1989, the second child on 01.06.1994 and the third child on 01.07.1998, thereafter, the petitioner had given birth to the twins on 03.02.2001. The contention raised was that since the petitioner has given birth to the third, fourth and fifth child after the cut off date i.e. 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, she is disqualified for the post of Sarpanch. The Election Tribunal after framing of the issues and adjudicating the same, has allowed the election petition. The election of the petitioner has been quashed on the post of Sarpanch. Aggrieved of the order dated 22.08.2022, the petitioner has assailed the validity of this order before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits before this Court that the petitioner had given birth to the children on two occasions after the cut off date of 27.11.1995 as the twins born on 03.02.2001 will be construed as one unit and the delivery which took place on 01.07.1998 will be considered as the second delivery only. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner had given birth to two children, one on 01.07.1998 and twins on 03.02.2001 and therefore, the earlier child born on 01.06.1994 should be considered as an additional child and the petitioner may be held eligible as children born on 01.07.1998 and 03.02.2001 can be considered two children only and therefore, the petitioner cannot be disqualified on the ground of having more than two children. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his 6. contention has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7835/2006 Ratiram v. Devi Charan & Anr. decided on 18.01.2010. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal, Banswara may kindly be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that the calculation with respect to the deliveries of the petitioner submitted before this Court is contrary to Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has correctly taken into consideration the number of children born after the cut off date and in consonance with Section 19 of the Act of 1994, the petitioner cannot be said to have only two children, even if it is construed that the twins born on 03.02.2001 is a single unit. He further submits that a bare perusal of Section 19 goes to show that if an additional child is born between the period from 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, the same will not be considered to be a disqualification for the purpose of this Act. However, in the present case, he submits that the petitioner already had a child prior to the two deliveries, wherein she had given birth to three children i.e. on 01.07.1998 and twins on 03.02.2001. He, therefore, submits that the learned Election Tribunal has correctly adjudicated the issue in question and has allowed the election petition and no interference is warranted by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the pleadings before me. 9. The undisputed factual details in the present case reveals that the petitioner had given birth to a child on 01.06.1994, then thereafter, another child was born to the petitioner on 01.07.1998 and thereafter, the petitioner was blessed with a twins on 03.02.2001. After the birth of a child on 01.06.1994, three children were born to the petitioner. In the present case, the additional child born to the petitioner will be considered the children born after 01.06.1994, therefore, the child born to the petitioner on 01.06.1994 cannot be termed to be an additional child. After the birth of a child on 01.06.1994, three children were born to the petitioner. In the present case, the additional child born to the petitioner will be considered the children born after 01.06.1994, therefore, the child born to the petitioner on 01.06.1994 cannot be termed to be an additional child. If the intention of the legislature was only a child born between 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, then the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would have merit acceptance, but the provision very clearly speaks about "the additional child" which signifies the fact that a person already having a child and in addition to that if a child is born between 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, then for that additional child, she will not be incurred a disqualification. For better understanding Section 19 of the Act of 1994 is reproduced here under:- "Sec.19. Qualifications for election as a Panch or a member- Every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of a Panchayati Raj Institution shall be qualified for election as a Panch or, as the case may be, a member of such Panchayati Raj Institution unless such person- (a)xxxxxxx (b)xxxxxxx (c)xxxxxxx (d)xxxxxxx (e)xxxxxxx (f)xxxxxxx (g)xxxxxxx (h)xxxxxxx (i)xxxxxxx (j)xxxxxxx (k)xxxxxxx (l) has more than two children; Provided that- (i)xxxxxxxx (ii)xxxxxxx (iii)xxxxxx (iv) the birth during the period from the date of commencement of the Act, hereinafter in this proviso referred to as the date of such commencement, to 27th November, 1995, of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of this disqualification mentioned in clause (1) and a person having more than two children (excluding the child, if any, born during the period from the date of such commencement to 27th November, 1995) shall not be disqualified under that clause for so long as the number of children he had on the date of commencement of this Act does not increase." (underlining mine) "Section 14-Gender and number:-In all Rajasthan laws, unless a different intention appears- (1)xxxxxxxxxxx (2) words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa." 10. A close reading of Sub Clause (iv) clearly shows that the legislature was of the intention that prior to 1994, since there was no such provision to declare a person disqualified if he or she is having more than two children, therefore, in order to give benefit of a particular provision in the intervening period, it was provided that between 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, if an "additional child" is born to a person, the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of disqualification mentioned in Clause 1 (l) and a person having more than two children excluding the child, if any, born 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995, shall not be a disqualification under the Clause for so long as the number of children she had on the date of commencement of this Act does not increase. The intention is well founded and sounds logical also. 11. The intention of the legislature is very clear, which was intended to give the benefit to those persons who already had two children, but has given birth to a child/ twins between the period from 23.04.1994 to 27.11.1995. It has a logic behind it that since the law was framed for the first time, the candidates who were on the family way to a third child were given the benefit of the law which has come into vogue for the first time. 12. Since in the present case, the petitioner had given birth to the first child in the year 1994, therefore, the same cannot be construed as additional child as per Section 19 of the Act of 1994, and therefore, the petitioner is disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch as the petitioner has given birth to three children in addition to the first child which was born on 01.06.1994. 13. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable and does not help the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the judgment of the Election Tribunal dated 22.08.2022 does not warrant any interference. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.