Joshpine vs Thenmozhi and 4 others

K. Sampath, J.—The revision petitioner questions the decision of the Second Additional District Judge, Trichirapalli. In the Election O.P.

filed by her in O.P. No. 66/38, the revision petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested for the post of President reserved for women in Keela

Perambalur Village Panchayat. As per the electoral roll, the first respondent''s age at the lime she filed the nomination was 19. As per Section 39 of

the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), no person shall be qualified for election unless he has completed his 21st year

of age. The first respondent was therefore disqualified to contest for the post. At the time of scrutiny of nominations the petitioner and other

candidates drew the attention of the fifth respondent that the first respondent''s nomination paper should be rejected on the ground that she had not

completed 21 years. The objection was over ruled by the fifth respondent. The first respondent contested for the post of President. She indulged in

various corrupt practices. More than three hundred persons, who were eligible voters had left India and were employed in several Arab Countries.

They were not physically present on the date of the election. But, the first respondent brought several persons with the help of her men to the

polling booth to vote in her favour by impersonation. Again, in many ballot papers the signatures of the Returning Officer had not been affixed.

Those votes cannot be taken into consideration during counting. During the counting of the voles on 14-10-1996 this was also objected to by the

petitioner''s election agent. The fifth respondent announced that the first respondent secured the highest number of votes viz. 1070 the petitioner

had secured 563 votes and the other respondents secured votes less than the first respondent and further declared that the first respondent had

been duly elected as President. The declaration was illegal and her election had to be declared as void and the petitioner, who had secured the

next highest votes should be declared elected. The first respondent and the fifth respondent contested the election petition while the other

respondents remained ex parte. In her counter, the first respondent slated that there was necessary evidence to show that she had completed 21

years, that the age given in the electoral roll as 19 was not correct, that the fifth respondent had rightly accepted the age of the first respondent as

more than 21 on the date of the nomination. The first respondent further contended that the impersonation pleaded was all false, that the objection

regarding the non-signing of the ballot papers was also not valid and that she had been rightly declared as the successful candidate and no

exception could be taken to the same. The fifth respondent also supported the case of the petitioner and denied that there was any corrupt practice

indulged in by the first respondent and that there was impersonation and further contended that at the time of polling, the contesting candidates and

their agents were present and watched the entire election process and there was no objection at the time of polling or afterwards from any one

much less by the petitioner and her agents, that such an objection was raised for the first time in the election petition only, that nothing prevented

the petitioner from taking necessary steps to stop the election if her contentions were really true, that the rules relating to the election had been

scrupulously followed and that if really there was any transgression, nothing prevented the petitioner from bringing it to his notice. She had

remained silent and allowed the counting to continue and the result had also been announced.

The Election Tribunal, viz. the Second Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, having rejected the case of the petitioner, the present revision

petition has been filed.

The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the first respondent had produced her school Transfer Certificate, but it had not

been proved by examining the Headmaster concerned, that in the absence of proof as required under the Evidence Act, the reliance placed by the

Election Tribunal on the Transfer Certificate was not correct and if the Transfer Certificate goes, we are left only with the electoral roll, which

shows the age of the first respondent as 19 on the date she filed her nomination.

The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, .

Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the. Election Tribunal has rightly considered all the available materials and

held that the first respondent who was aged over 21 years, had participated in the election, that the Transfer Certificate filed had been rightly

accepted by the Election Tribunal, that with regard to the other objections, the petitioner had not established the same with any acceptable

evidence and that the dismissal of the election petition was in order.

The only question falling for consideration is whether the acceptance of the Transfer Certificate giving the age of the petitioner by the Election

Tribunal is correct. The contention of the petitioner is that nobody connected with the certificate has been examined. In the decision relied on by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that,

an entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible u/s 35 of the Act, but the entry regarding to the age of a

person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was

recorded.

In the instant case, the Original Transfer Certificate had been produced before the Election Tribunal. No doubt, unless somebody connected

with the certificate speaks to the contents, indeed, it cannot be acted upon. The first respondent herself has given evidence about this certificate. In

my view, that should settle the question. She has clearly spoken to having furnished the certificate and to its contents. She has also denied the

suggestion that the other contestants disputed her age. This is also corroborated by the evidence of the fifth respondent.

In the case before the Supreme Court, neither the candidates themselves (emphasis supplied) nor their parents or any person conversant with

their dates of birth were examined and the Supreme Court in the absence of material on the basis of which the date of birth was recorded in school

register held that the same did not have any evidentiary value to prove the age of the candidates.

It is further to be noticed that at the time the nomination papers were scrutinized, copy of the certificate had been filed. The original has been

filed in the instant case and marked as Ex.R-1 and it has been signed by the first respondent. Further, her father had vouched for the contents and

as already noticed, she has spoken to the exhibits. In these circumstances, I find that the Tribunal had rightly accepted the Transfer Certificate and

held that the first respondent had completed 21 years of age on the date of nomination. No exception can be taken to the decision taken by the

Election Tribunal. No other point is urged before me. There are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no

order as to costs.