Patna High Court
Dolly Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 July, 2018
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12849 of 2017
===========================================================
Dolly Kumari, Wife of Sri Rupesh Kumar, Resident of Village & P.O.- Manik
Chowk, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna through its Commissioner.
4. The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Sitamarhi.
7. Ram Shreshth Bhagat, Son of Sakhi Chandra Bhagat @ Jogendra Bhagat,
Resident of Mohalla- Runni Saidpur, Manikchowk, North Constituency No.4
Block & P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate
For SEC : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate
For the State Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7
For private respondent : MD. M. Mazumdar, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 18-07-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the State Election
Commission.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12849 of 2017 dt.18-07-2018
2/6
petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by
respondent no. 4 in Case No. 04 of 2017 whereby and whereunder
the petitioner has been declared disqualified after election for
holding the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Manik Chowk
and the seat of Mukhiya has been declared vacant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the State Election
Commissioner, Bihar is bad in law and the same cannot be
sustained. He submitted that as a matter of fact, the date of birth of
the petitioner is 26.06.1993, but erroneously the State Election
Commissioner has held her date of birth to be 23.06.1995 and
disqualified her from holding the post of Mukhiya on the ground
that she had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of election.
He submitted that several contemporaneous documents submitted
by the petitioner were not considered by the State Election
Commissioner and merely on the basis of date of birth entered into
her matriculation certificate a wrong finding of fact has been
recorded in the impugned order.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
Election Commission submitted that when a complaint was
received in respect of date of birth of the petitioner, the State
Election Commissioner got the same inquired by the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.12849 of 2017 dt.18-07-2018
3/6
Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Sitamarhi
and on the basis of the report it transpired that the petitioner had
suppressed her original date of birth and made a wrong entry of
date of birth in her nomination paper. He submitted that petitioner
was given ample opportunity of hearing and the findings of fact
arrived at by the State Election Commissioner are neither perverse
nor incorrect. The petitioner has not denied the fact that the date of
birth recorded in her matriculation certificate is 23.06.1995. He
submitted that prior to receipt of complaint by the State Election
Commissioner, no effort was made by the petitioner for getting her
date of birth entered into matriculation certificate corrected and
only after the complaint was received, all sorts of efforts were made
by her in order to get her date of birth entered into matriculation
certificate changed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
6. Section 136(1)(b) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,
2006 (for short 'the Act') provides that a person shall be
disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as
Mukhiya, member of Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the
Gram Katchahri, member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of
Zila Parishad, if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12849 of 2017 dt.18-07-2018
4/6
time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature
of the State. It further provides that no person shall be disqualified
on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age, if he has attained
the age of 21 years.
7. The facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioner
contested the election in the year 2016 for the post of Mukhiya of
Manik Chowk North Gram Panchayat. After counting of votes, she
was declared elected on 03.06.2016. Respondent no. 7, Ram
Shreshth Bhagat filed a complaint before the State Election
Commissioner, Bihar, Patna against the election of the petitioner
alleging that the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.06.1995 and the
matriculation certificate shows the age of the petitioner on the date
of nomination was below 21 years. The said petition was registered
as Case No. 4 of 2017 and notices were issued to the concerned
parties and a report was called for from the District Magistrate-
cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Sitamarhi in respect of
the complaint made by respondent no. 7. After receipt of the report
sent by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer vide
letter no. 29/GP dated 16.01.2017, the concerned parties were heard
by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna and after hearing
both the parties and perusing the relevant documents submitted by
them, the State Election Commissioner found the date of birth of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12849 of 2017 dt.18-07-2018
5/6
the petitioner in the mark-sheet of Secondary Education
Examination 2011 issued by the Bihar School Examination Board,
Patna to be 23.06.1995. It also came to the notice of the District
Magistrate in course of inquiry that the petitioner had sent a
representation before the Secretary, Bihar School Examination
Board on 06.08.2017 for correction in her date of birth recorded in
the matriculation certificate. Since the petitioner failed to explain as
to how the date of birth was wrongly recorded in the matriculation
certificate and why she took no step for correction of same till the
filing of the complaint by respondent no. 7, the State Election
Commissioner disqualified her for holding the post of Mukhiya on
the ground that she was less than 21 years of age on the date of
election.
8. The contention of the petitioner that the
contemporaneous documents submitted by her were not looked into
by the State Election Commissioner is not correct. The State
Election Commissioner had not only considered the documents
produced by the petitioner but also assigned cogent reasons for not
accepting the same.
9. Apparently, the petitioner has not denied the fact that
in the matriculation certificate her date of birth is recorded as
23.06.1995. She had passed her matriculation in the year 2011 and Patna High Court CWJC No.12849 of 2017 dt.18-07-2018 6/6 since then no effort was made by her to get entry of her date of birth in the matriculation certificate corrected. A complaint was filed by respondent no. 7 before the State Election Commissioner and only after receipt of notice on the said complaint, the petitioner filed a representation before the Bihar School Examination Board on 16.08.2017 for correction in her date of birth and claimed that her date of birth is 26.06.1993. The representation filed for correction in the date of birth is apparently an afterthought in order to justify the wrong committed by the petitioner by mentioning a wrong date of birth in her nomination paper for contesting the election of Mukhiya.
10. Since the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years as per her matriculation certificate on the date of election for the post of Mukhiya, she has rightly been disqualified by the State Election Commissioner in compliance with the provisions provided under Section 136(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, no error can be found with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.07.2018 Transmission NA Date