RATHORE, J. - (1.) FOR conducting the elections of Gram Panchayat, State of Rajasthan has issued a notification dated 11. 01. 2000 and in pursuance of the notification dated 11. 01. 2000, the election of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jatwada was held on 31. 1. 2000.
(2.) THE petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jatwada on 31. 1. 2000 itself. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper before the Returning Officer, Jatwara Panchayat Circle for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jatwara. At the time of submission of nomination paper, nobody has objected his candidature and the petitioner has contested the election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jatwada and was duly declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jatwada as the petitioner got the highest votes. The certificate to this effect was also issued on 31. 01. 2000 by the Election Officer. The defeated candidate Shri Ladu Ram-respondent No. 2 filed an election petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on the ground that a daughter Pinku was born to the petitioner on 7. 6. 1996 and son Dipu @ Poonam was also born on 25. 5. 1999. It was prayed by the respondent No. 2 in the election petition that since the petitioner has got more than two children after 1995, therefore, the petitioner be declared disqualified as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jatwada. The petitioner filed the reply to the election petition in which the petitioner has stated that the children born before 27. 11. 1995 has to be treated as one unit and children born after that has to be treated another unit and as four daughters Seema, Karma, Anita and Pinku were born before 27. 11. 1995 and therefore, they have to be treated as one unit and as Dipu was only born after 27. 11. 1995 can be treated as another unit as per Section 19 (1) (iv) of the Panchayat Act, 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Seema and Karma two daughters have been given on adoption to father-in-law of the petitioner and both of them are residing there with in- laws and Pinku has been given on adoption to the sister of the petitioner. Since three children has already been given on adoption to father-in-law and to the sister of the petitioner, and only two children remains with the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Election Tribunal vide order dated 17. 3. 2001, framed two issues; (i) whether the petitioner was disqualified under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act due to having additional children after the Act came into force? (ii) whether taking two children on adoption to the father- in-law of the petitioner as mentioned in para 4 of the reply filed by the petitioner and if so what is its effect? The respondent No. 2 (election petitioner) has produced only his witness as AW-1 and his statement was recorded by the Election Tribunal wherein he has stated that one Tinku was born to the petitioner on 7. 6. 1996 and another child was born on 25. 5. 1999. The witness further stated that the petitioner has not given any of his daughter on adoption to his in-laws or to his sister. The statement of petitioner's witness was also recorded on 16. 1. 2002 as DW-1 in which the witness has stated that so far as Pinku is concerned, she born on 25. 4. 1994 and son Dipur was born on 25. 5. 1999 and therefore, the children born before the Act of 1994 came into force, he had only one unit and children born after the Act came into force can be treated as another unit and therefore, according to criteria laid down in the Panchayat Act, 1994, there are only two units which does not disqualify to the petitioner to hold the post of Sarpanch. ;