Patna High Court - Orders
Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma vs The State Election Commission & Ors on 10 September, 2014
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7347 of 2013
======================================================
Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma, wife of shri gayan prakash arya, resident of
village ballu, post office ram yodha, Police Station dhoraiya, district banka
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State Election Commission, Bihar through its commissioner, sone
bhawan, birchand patel path, patna-800001
2. the secretary, state election commission, bihar, sone bhawan, birchand
patel path, patna-800001
3. the joint election commissisoner, state election commission, bihar, sone
bhawan, birchand patel path, patna-800001
4. the District Magistrate -cum- district election officer, panchayat district
banka
5. shri muni lal paswan, son of gajadhar paswan, resident of village
bouerchak, Police Station dhoraiya, district banka
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
CAV ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH)
6 10-09-2014The present appeal arises from the order, dated 19.11.2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by the writ petitioner- appellant and affirming the order, dated 20.03.2013, passed in Case No.32 of 2012, of the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, disqualifying her election as 'Pramukh'. The State Election Commissioner, by the order impugned in the writ petition, has held that the writ petitioner-appellant was not qualified to be elected as Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 2 'Pramukh' inasmuch as she was under aged on the date of filing of her nomination paper.
2. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the findings of the State Election Commissioner that she was under 21 years of age on the date of filing of her nomination and was, therefore, not qualified to be elected as 'Pramukh', her case before the learned Single Judge being that she was above 21 years of age on the date of filing of the nomination and, thus, stood qualified to be elected as Pramukh.
3. In support of her submission that she was above 21 years of age on the date of filing of the nomination, she produced a copy of a certificate granted by the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Kasimpur, a doctor's certificate as well as a certificate granted by the Head Master, Ganga Karharya School.
4. The learned Single Judge noticed that neither the petitioner nor her parents ever challenged the correctness of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate and as per her matriculation certificate, the writ petitioner-appellant was under aged on the date of filing of nomination and was, thus, estopped from taking a plea that her date of birth, mentioned in the matriculation certificate, was not correct. Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 3
5. The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, affirmed the order of the State Election Commissioner that the appellant was grossly under age being only 17 years 10 months 13 days old on the date of filing of nomination as against the statutory requirement of 21 years, which was the qualifying age for being elected as 'Pramukh'.
6. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner- appellant has reiterated, in this appeal, more or less the same submissions, which had been made before the learned single Judge. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant maintains that the writ petitioner- appellant was 22 years old on the date of filing of her nomination and it is not uncommon that correct age is, generally, not mentioned in the school register, particularly, with respect to girls.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents herein submits that the writ petitioner- appellant has rightly been held not qualified to be elected as 'Pramukh', because she was under aged.
8. Section 136(1)(b) of Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, mandates that no one, under the age of 21 years, can be elected to the post of 'Pramukh'. The appellant has placed emphasis upon certificates granted by Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 4 the Mukhiya of her Gram Panchayat, the Head Master of the local Middle School and a local doctor.
9. In our view, neither of the said three certificates would denude the probative value of a date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate so as to have an overriding effect. The Supreme Court, in State of State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Sharma, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 719, has held as follows:
"2.............. The date of birth, as recorded in the matriculation examination certificate carries a greater evidential value than the evidential value attached to the certificate given by the retired headmaster showing the date of birth of the respondents. Such an evidence is not to be preferred when, admittedly, the date of birth of the respondent as recorded in the matriculation examination certificate was 19.04.1935. The Administrative Tribunal erred in relying on the certificate issued by the retired headmaster as well as the horoscope furnished by the respondent".
10. We further find that the appellant had not made any prayer before the State Election Commissioner or before the District Magistrate for summoning the original register of the school to establish that the date of birth, recorded in the matriculation certificate, was not correct. Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 5
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order under appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
Md. Jamaluddin (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) I. A. Ansari, J.: 12. While agreeing with the observations made and conclusions reached, by my esteemed brother, Samarendra Pratap Singh, J., I deem it necessary to add a few words.
13. From the decision in Mohanlal Sharma (supra), what becomes evident is that date of birth, which stands recorded in a matriculation certificate, carries greater evidentiary value than the evidentiary value, which is attributed to a certificate given by a retired Headmaster. showing date of birth and that such evidence given by the retired Headmaster is not to be preferred, when the date of birth is recorded in the matriculation examination certificate of a person and that the date of birth, recorded in the matriculation examination certificate, has to be preferred over horoscope, which may be furnished by a party.
14. The decision, which has been rendered in Mohanlal Sharma (supra), was on the question of comparative evidentiary value of a matriculation certificate vis-à-vis a certificate given by a retired Headmaster as Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 6 regards date of birth.
15. Though the decision, in Mohanlal Sharma (supra), is, strictly speaking, in the context of the facts of the said case, the fact remains that the decision, in Mohanlal Sharma (supra), shows that the date of birth recorded in a matriculation certificate granted by a competent authority, carries far greater evidentiary value than the evidentiary value, which can be attributed to a certificate given by a Headmaster of a school, be the Headmaster retired or currently holding office.
16. In the case at hand, the determination of the question, as to whether the writ petitioner-appellant had or had not completed the age of 21 years on the date of filing of the nomination, was open to determination by the Election Commissioner, when the issue was not complex requiring determination of the issue by a civil court.
17. With regard to the above, it is noteworthy that there is no dispute that the matriculation certificate, in question, was issued by a competent authority and, hence, the correctness of the date of birth, recorded in the said certificate, could not have been refused to be accepted by the Election Commissioner and has rightly been accepted by the Election Commissioner, when the writ petitioner- appellant relied upon the certificates, with regard to her Patna High Court LPA No.27 of 2014 (6) dt. 10-09-2014 7 age, issued by Mukhiya of her Gram Panchayat, the Headmaster of the local Middle School and a local doctor.
18. Such determination of age by the Election Commissioner, in the light of the materials available before it, cannot be said to be incorrect or invalid.
19. The Election Commissioner did not, therefore, err, as has been rightly held by the learned single Judge, in arriving at the conclusion that the writ petitioner-appellant was not of the qualified age on the date of filing her nomination.
20. We find no infirmity, legal or factual, in the conclusion so reached.
21. The writ petition was, therefore, wholly without merit and deserved to be dismissed.
22. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal, as indicated above, stands dismissed.
Prabhakar Anand (I. A. Ansari, J.) AFR U √ T X