Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21556 of 2012 ====================================================== Rani Devi, wife of Sri Rambabu Paswan, Resident Of Village- Bhalpatti, Post Office- Bhalpatti, Police Station- Bhalpatti, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Election Commission through its Secretary, having office at Sone Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Near R-Block Round About, Bihar, Patna 2. The State Election Commissioner, having office at Sone Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Near R-Block Round About, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga Cum Election Officer having office at Darbhanga 4. Gita Devi, wife of Sri Bindeshwar Ram, Resident Of Village- Bhalpatti, Post Office- Bhalpatti, Police Station- Bhalpatti, District- Darbhanga .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand K. Ojha & Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Commission (Respondent no.2) : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate with Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-2 For Respondent no.4 : Mr. Radha Krishna Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 5 05-02-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsels for the parties. The challenge is to the order dated 8th of November, 2012 passed by the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna in Case No.96 of 2011, as contained in Annexure 6, whereby the petitioner was held to be below the required age for contesting the election of Mukhiya of the concerned Gram 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.21556 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 2 / 7 Panchayat and consequently declared disqualified in terms of the provisions of section 136(1)(Kha) and 136(2) read with rule 117 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006. Upon holding the petitioner disqualified, the Commission further directed that the post of Mukhiya shall stand vacated and necessary action be taken for filling the vacancy as per the rules. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-State Election Commission has committed serious error while accepting the date of birth of the petitioner being 15th of March, 1990 by ignoring the relevant documents produced by the petitioner i.e. the marriage certificate of the petitioner, birth certificate from the School as also the electoral roll from where it would appear that the petitioner had attained the requisite age required for filling up the nomination for the above election. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court previously by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No.1829
Decision
of 2012 and other analogous cases, which was disposed of by an order dated 22nd of June, 2012, as contained in Annexure 2. This Court while considering the writ petition of the petitioner took note of the fact that since the State Election Commission has not passed a final order, disposed of the case with certain observations and directed that the State Election Commission should conduct an 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.21556 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 3 / 7 enquiry with regard to the documents produced by the parties in concluding the age of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the State Election Commission even though taking note of the documents produced by the petitioner as also the affidavits produced on behalf of the petitioner did not rely upon those documents and disposed of the case relying solely on the statements made by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the reply to the complaint before the State Election Commission. Learned counsel submits that on perusal of paragraph 4 of the reply, it would be suggestive of the fact that the date i.e., 15.3.1990 as recorded in the School register was given by her illiterate grandmother and as such, that should not have been taken as a conclusive date of birth of the petitioner. The complainant of the said case in collusion with the Headmaster of the concerned School got tampered the figure `0’ by the figure `5’ in the year of birth so as to read “15.3.1995” instead of “15.3.1990”. In sum and substance, the submission is that the State Election Commission ought not to have accepted the statement made in the reply of the petitioner stating the date of birth as 15.3.1990. In the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed for non- consideration of the materials on record. 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.21556 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 4 / 7 On the other hand, on behalf of the State Election Commission it is submitted that while considering the issue with respect to the age of the petitioner, the documents were produced by both the sides, which have been considered and discussed in the impugned order. There were also reports received from the concerned District Magistrates and other authorities with respect to the interpolation in the year of birth of the School register, as alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit. It is further submitted that the State Election Commission, however, took into consideration the statements made by the petitioner on affidavit by way of reply to the complaint stating to the effect that the date of birth i.e., 15.3.1990 was given by the grandmother of the petitioner, who was an illiterate lady, and it was got tampered by the concerned Headmaster in collusion with the complainant (respondent no.4) to make the date as 15.3.1995. The affidavit to the similar effect was also filed by the grandmother of the petitioner. Apart from paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit, a further statement was made in paragraph 15 of the reply affidavit, in which it was specifically stated to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner was interpolated as 15.3.1995 in place of 15.3.1990 and as such, the State Election Commission took the date of birth as 15.3.1990 as stated by the petitioner about her date of birth as 15.3.1990 which 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.21556 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 5 / 7 would be evident on perusal of paragraph 4 read with paragraph 15 of the reply affidavit. It is accordingly prayed that the order does not call for any interference in an extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the State supports the order and adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the State Election Commission. Learned counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that upon conjoint consideration of the documents even produced by the petitioner before the State Election Commission, it would come to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner was of the year 1995. However, the learned counsel submits that even if those interpolations although denied are ignored, even then the year of birth i.e., 15.3.1990 as asserted by the petitioner in her reply remains intact and the Commission did not commit any error in accepting the said date. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of their respective pleadings and the documents brought on the record, it would appear that the controversy is with respect to the age of the petitioner, which has serious legal consequences. From the documents produced on behalf of the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.21556 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 6 / 7 complainant, as noticed above, as also the materials brought on the record of the State Election Commission through the concerned District Magistrate, it would appear that the State Election Commission has taken into consideration the reply of the petitioner filed before the Commission. The reply as stated in paragraph 4 speaks that the date of birth of the petitioner was got recorded in the school register at the instance of the grandmother of the petitioner, although the petitioner submits that the said date of birth should not have been taken as a final as the grandmother, who gave the date of birth, was an illiterate lady. However, in the whole of the reply before the Commission, the petitioner herself did not give any date claiming to be her date of birth although the allegations were that the year of birth as recorded in the school admission register as 15.3.1990 was tampered and there were overwritings on the part of the Headmaster in collusion with respondent no.4 so as to read it as 15.3.1995. In my opinion, even if those interpolations are not taken into consideration, the date 15.3.1990 is not specifically denied rather in paragraph 15 of the reply, the assertion of the petitioner is to the effect that the interpolation was made in the date of birth so as to make her date of birth as 15.3.1995 instead of 15.3.1990. 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.21556 of 2012 (5) dt.05-02-2013 7 / 7 In view of the above, the respondent-State Election Commission has rightly taken into consideration the date indicated by the petitioner in her affidavit as 15.3.1990 only and observed that even though the other documents are not taken into consideration, in such circumstance also the date of birth accepted by the petitioner herself was 15.3.1990 and upon such finding, the Commission held that the petitioner did not attain the requisite age as on the date of filing of nomination for election of Mukhiya. The Commission consequently declared her disqualified and further directed for consequential action. In my opinion, the order dated 8.11.2012 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent-State Election Commission cannot be faulted in law. For the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)