Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shribai vs Smt Rukmani Sharma&Ors; on 1 September, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
Shribai Vs. Smt. Rukmani Sharma & Others
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9226/2016)
Date of Order: September 1st, 2016.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Madhav Mitra, Manoj Bhardwaj and
Mr. Arvind Sharma, for respondents.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter `the returned candidate') is aggrieved of the judgment dated 8-7-2016 passed by District Judge Karauli (hereinafter `the Election Tribunal') in Election Petition No.31/2015, Rukmani Sharma Vs. Shribai & others, whereby the election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter `the election petitioner') was allowed, the election of the returned candidate as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rudhkapura Panchayat Samiti Karauli District Karauli set aside and the election petitioner declared elected to the said post.
2
Election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rudhkapura, Panchayat Samiti Karauli was held in January, 2015 as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter `the Act of 1994'). Result thereof was declared on 18-1- 2015 and the petitioner elected as Sarpanch. The election petitioner, the only other candidate at the said election, challenged the result on the ground that the returned candidate was not eligible for contesting the election as she had not passed 8th class, and the marks sheet submitted by her along with the nomination paper was fake. Reply of denial was filed by the petitioner. Issues were framed, and evidence thereon laid by the contesting parties.
The Election Tribunal considering the evidence on record concluded that the returned candidate had contested the election on the basis of a forged marks sheet purporting the returned candidate to have passed class VIII. The mark sheet was fraudulently procured from a school which at the relevant time was not recognised to hold classes beyond class V (5). Further the probabilities of the returned candidate having passed class VIII, the eligibility for contesting election to the post of Sarpanch were zero as she could not even append her signatures and from the evidence on record was over 25 years old when she allegedly passed class VIII from a school at a distance of over 175 kilometers from her residence. Further the 3 returned candidate even did not enter the witness box in her defence. None of the petitioner's children were even literate. The nomination papers filed by the the returned candidate named her school as Navin Higher Primary School Dausa at one place and Nehru Bal Vidhya Mandir Madhogarh Bassi Jaipur, at another. This contradiction was clinching evidence of falsity of the claim of the returned candidate as to her class VIII qualification. The evidence laid by the election petitioner both oral and documentary was unshaken and proved. I am of the considered view that the findings of the trial court/ election tribunal on the returned candidate contesting the election on the post of Sarpanch on a forged marks sheet are not even remotely perverse based as they are on an objective consideration of the evidence on record. Nothing erroneous or illegal can even remotely be attributed thereto.
Counsel for the returned candidate then submitted that the Election Tribunal committed gross illegality in declaring the election petitioner to be elected as Sarpanch while no such prayer was made by the election petitioner in the election petition where the only prayer was for fresh election. Counsel submitted that therefore the impugned judgment passed by the Election Tribunal to the extent of declaring the election petitioner as elected to the post of Sarpanch be set aside.
4
Per contra, Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Madhav Mitra, Manoj Bhardwaj and Arvind Sharma supported the impugned judgment dated 8-7-2016 passed by the Election Tribunal in declaring the election petitioner as the elected Sarpanch. Relying on the judgment in the case of Rupadhar Pujari Vs. Gangadhar Bhatra [(2004)7 SCC 654] it was submitted by Mr. R.P. Singh that where only two candidates having contested an election and the election of the returned candidate is set aside, the Election Tribunal could in such a situation/ circumstance declare the election petitioner to be declared elected even if the prayer in his petition was not happily worded. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the Election Tribunal has granted well merited relief to the election petitioner and direction for a fresh election would have been a travesty of justice in the facts of the case, a negation of the democratic will and an unwarranted burden on the exchequer. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishwanatha Reddy Vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and another [AIR 1969 SC 604] was also relied upon to contend that on the returned candidate being found to be under statutory disqualification no fresh poll was necessary where the only other contesting candidate, the election petitioner, could be declared elected. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that thus, as in the setting aside of the election of the returned candidate, so to in declaring the 5 election petitioner, elected on the post of Sarpanch, the judgment of the Election Tribunal suffers from no error of jurisdiction, perversity or patent illegality and hence the petition be dismissed.
Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the Election Tribunal has not committed any illegality in setting aside the election of the returned candidate and at the same time declaring the election petitioner to be elected as Sarpanch as there was no any other candidate in the election for the post of Sarpanch in issue. The returned candidate had contested the election on the basis of false informations submitted by her and relying on fake mark sheet from a school which was not authorised at the relevant time to hold middle level classes i.e. class 5 to class 8. Other evidences buttressed the fraudulent nature of the returned candidate's claim to have passed class VIII, the eligibility under the Act of 1994 to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. The returned candidate's election as sarpanch has rightly been set aside. The Apex court in the case of Rupadhar Pujari Vs. Gangadhar Bhatra (supra) has held that when only two candidates contested an election and the election of the returned candidate was set aside, there was no requirement for a direction for fresh election. The Election Tribunal could in such a circumstance declare the election petitioner to be declared elected even if the prayer in his petition 6 was not happily worded and relief of being declared elected not sought specifically by the election petitioner. In the instant case, the Election Tribunal has after setting aside the election of the returned candidate granted well merited relief to the election petitioner as she was the only other contesting candidate for the post of Sarpanch. The judgment of the Election Tribunal warrants no interference as it suffers from no error of jurisdiction, perversity or patent illegality.
Consequently, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 7 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.