AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chouhan, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2010 whereby the Election Registration Officer has rejected the petitioner''s application for declaring respondent No. 4, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, as being disqualified.
It is the case of the petitioner that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had given birth to a girl child after the cut off date of November 27, 1995. Therefore, she had more than two children after the cut off date. Hence, she is not qualified to contest the election. In order to substantiate this case, the petitioner to had submitted the birth certificate of the third child showing the date of birth as 10.03.1997. Notice was issued to Smt. Bhagwati Devi. In her reply, she had contended that the birth certificate submitted by the petitioner is a forged document. In fact, her third child was born on 21.11.1995. The Election Registration Officer has held that due to lack of time, it is not possible to get the document examined and since the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondent No. 4. Therefore, he has rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Election Registration Officer was duty bound to have the matter inquired into and to pass the necessary order.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
Considering the fact that the elections are just around the corner, the learned Officer was certainly justified in holding that it is not possible to have the document examined within the short period. Moreover, in case, it is discovered subsequently that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had the third child after the cut off date, and in case she were to win the election, she can be declared as disqualified for holding the office. Therefore, presently the balance of convenience lies in favour of Smt. Bhagwati. For, only on surmises and conjectures, a citizen cannot be prevented from contesting the election. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 11.01.2010.
For the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.