Rampati Meena vs Mamta Meena And Ors

The Division Bench has remanded the matter back to this court vide its order dated 28th May, 2019 to pass a reasoned order on the basis of material on record with regard to interim order passed by this court earlier which has been set aside.

Heard the petitioner at length as well as respondent's counsel.

The petitioner-Smt. Rampati Meena is a returned candidate on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bichha. Her election was challenged by respondent-Mamta on the two grounds namely, that she did not possess 8th qualification and the certificate was forged and secondly on the ground that she was having more than two children. The Election Tribunal has by the impugned judgment dated 10th April, 2019 set aside the election of the petitioner on both counts.

Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out from the judgment that evidence which has come on record was completely ignored. He has stated that hearsay evidence was accepted as a truth and the respondent herself stated before the Election Tribunal that she had no knowledge about contents of the election petition and the case was registered by her at the behest of her father-in-law Ram Chandra and she does not know the contents of the election petition as she is illiterate. She had also pleaded ignorance about details in her cross-examination which has been ignored by the Election Tribunal.

Learned counsel states that Tribunal has proceeded to rely upon a report prepared by one Shiv Shankar Prajapati in relation to educational qualification of the petitioner who in his report although stated that name of the petitioner was mentioned in the register but has doubted the SR Register being old or new. He has also doubted contents of the register in his report which has been accepted by the Tribunal though entire report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner and Shiv Shankar Prajpati did not present himself as a witness. Ram Kishore Meena and another officer of the Education Department have found that the petitioner had passed 8th Class Examination but his report has been ignored without giving reasons.

Learned counsel also submits that as regards the issue of third child born to the petitioner, there was no documentary proof and the petitioner herself has stated on oath to have only two children apart from one who expired. Learned counsel has taken this court to the judgment where the court has quoted the statement of respondent-Mamta and survey report which has been relied upon for holding that the petitioner was having three children and third child was born after 07.12.2007 while the petitioner had placed on record documents to show that she had a girl child Meera born on 17.08.2004 and one boy Arvind born on 02.04.2008.

Learned counsel submits that on the basis of complaint made against the petitioner wherein charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer, the Tribunal could not have reached to the conclusion that petitioner had three children. The report of Tehsildar was also exhibited wherein it is clearly mentioned that petitioner had three children Sushree Meera, Golu @ Arvind and Ankit. Her son Ankit had later on expired but the Tribunal has doubted the Ration Card and the Bhamashah Card. The witnesses were also not believed by the Tribunal without being any reason and thus he submits that there is perversity in the judgment passed by the Tribunal and elected candidate cannot be ousted on the said basis. It is stated that Tribunal has proceeded with the case as if it was for the petitioner to disprove the charges and to prove the allegation.

Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 to submit that proof of contents of documents are required to be proved by the person who has written the documents in terms of Evidence Act Section 61 to 65. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570 and in Ramesh Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No.11284/2011, decided by this court vide judgment dated 16.11.2018.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the stay application and submits that certified copy obtained from the Government department, he is not required to further prove the report submitted by Shiv Shankar Prajapati was obtained by the respondent and therefore, Shiv Shankar Prajapati was not required to prove the same. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 425 and he further supports the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal.

Prima facie, I find that the Tribunal has relied on one of the reports prepared by Shiv Shankar Prajapati Exhibit-2 in terms of direction issued by the District Education Officer, Dausa. The first report was prepared by one Ram Kishore Meena which was not accepted although he has stated that documents of educational qualification as submitted by the Sarpanch tally the school record. The second report has been again prepared which has been accepted by the Tribunal. However, she does not disclose the earlier report prepared by Ramkishore Meena. It is also noticed that there is prima facie perversity in reading the report by learned Tribunal. The report was also not proved by the person who has prepared it as to how he reached to the conclusion when factually the name of the Sarpanch was available in the register. Thus prima facie case is made out for grant of interim order. The balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner who is an elected Sarpanch having majority of votes. On the aspect, this court finds that if stay is not granted, the post of Sarpanch would be filled by issuing a fresh notification and the same cannot be reversed.

The writ petition has already been admitted vide order dated 1 st May, 2019. In view thereof, the effect and operation of the order passed by the Election Tribunal dated 10th April, 2019 shall remain stayed.