Shama vs Shivani Kashyap And Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner was elected as ‘Gram Pradhan’. Her election was challenged by respondent No. 1, by filing an Election Petition, which is pending

before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. In the said election petition, on an application filed by respondent No. 1, learned Sub

Divisional Magistrate requested the District Basic Education Officer to verify the educational certificates submitted by petitioner at the time of her

nomination. By the said letter, issued on 22.09.2023, District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar was asked to send verification report by

20.10.2023.

Pursuant to the aforesaid request, Block Education Officer, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar furnished the desired information to the Election Tribunal vide

order dated 02.11.2023.

It is stated in the letter that Adarsh Bal Vidhya Mandir, Sahawali, Muzaffarnagar was closed some 12 years ago, as such transfer certificate of the

petitioner could not be verified. In para 2 of the said letter, Block Education Officer stated that petitioner received education upto 5th standard from

Primary School, Bhandoora and she passed out of the said school on 20.05.2009.

Petitioner moved an application before the Election Tribunal, seeking permission to cross- examine District Basic Education Officer,

Muzzafarnagar. Her application was rejected vide order dated 25.10.2024. Petitioner challenged the order passed by Election Tribunal in a Revision

Petition, which too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, vide judgment dated 05.12.2024 by holding t hat the

point on which petitioner wants to cross examine the District Basic Education Officer is not relevant as per Section 5 of Evidence Act.

These two judgment and orders have been challenged by petitioner in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has now moved an application on 07.01.2025 for permission to cross- examine the Block

Education Officer. He submits that this fact has not been disclosed by petitioner in this writ petition.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, as the reasons given by learned Courts below cannot be said to be

unsustainable. The point on which petitioner wants to cross examine the officer, has no relvance to the proceedings. Thus, there is no scope for

interference in the matter.

However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise objection regarding admissibility of the unsolicited information supplied by Block Education Officer.

The application moved by petitioner on 07.01.2025, shall be decided as per law, without being influenced by any observation made by this order.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed off.