Jagir Singh and ors. vs Mohar Singh and ors.

D.S. Tewatia and S.S. Sodhi, JJ. (Oral)

The petitioners were elected members of the Gram Panchayat through an election held on 27th June, 198. Their election along with other members of the Gram Panchayat was questioned by one Mohar Singh, respondent No. 1 before us, on the ground that Narender alias Bachchu who was elected as one of the members with 179 votes was not eligible to contest election because of being underage.

The prescribed authority found as a fact that Narender alias Bachchu was less than 25 years of age and was not entitled to contest the election for the membership of the Gram Panchayat.

Since it was a composite constituency and the candidates we elected in order of merit on the basis of the number of votes secured by them and the votes secured by Narender alias Bachchu were considered sufficient as to materially affect the election of the winning candidates, because the last winning candidate had secured 157 votes, so the election of all the elected candidates was set aside.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made half hearted attempt to argue that the finding of the prescribed authority that Narender alias Bachchu was underage, was not justified. The prescribed authority, in this regard had inter alia relied upon a certified copy of birth entry from the register of birth and death which showed that a male child named Netram was born to Karan Singh. It was alleged that this Netram was none else but Narender alias Bachchu. It has been, however, argued before us that the said name had not been connected with Narender alias Bachchu. It means that the learned counsel for the petitioners is asserting that the said Net Ram was not identified with Narender alias Bachchu. The prescribed authority in this regard had to say this :

"........... But there cannot be any dispute regarding the identity of Narender Kumar when the school certificates regarding all the sons of Karan Singh were placed on record and there may be difference of six months or a year in the date of birth mentioned in the school certificates from the actual date of birth. The dates of birth of three other sons are 5th July, 76, 5th August, 1972 and 15th June, 69. There is no evidence on the file that any other son was born to Karan Singh, who had died and that the date of birth pertains to any such son. So, there remains no doubt about the identity of the person concerned. No oral or documentary evidence has been led that the child whose name was mentioned as Net Ram in the birth certificate was some other child born to Karan Singh, who died. The identity of Narrender stands established from his school certificates and that of his other brothers. In Sukh Ram v. Kunaan etc. it was held that the entries contained in the birth and death register can be proved by filing certified copies and that the only requirement of law is that identity of the person concerned should be established relating to such copies."

A perusal of the aforesaid leaves no doubt about the fact that the entry in question relates to Narender alias Bachchu. This Court is averse to scrutinise the finding of the prescribed authority in exercise of the writ jurisdiction unless such a finding is shown to be based on no evidence. A perusal of the aforesaid finding of the prescribed authority would show that the prescribed authority had came to this finding on the basis of the evidence before it.

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this petition and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.