P.B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dt. 15.07.1996 (Annex.6) by which the Chief Executive Officer, Churu has held that the petitioner is disqualified from contesting the election of Sarpanch of the village as he had given birth to a third child on 02.03.1996.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Joshi submitted that as a matter of fact third child of the petitioner was born before the cut off date and for this purpose, he has referred to the date of birth certificate showing that the child was born on 15.11.1995 i.e. before the cut off date which is 27.11.1995. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the officer concerned has not taken into account the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and passed the impugned order in a very cryptic manner. The learned Counsel also submitted that before passing the impugned order the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of enquiry report, therefore, the petitioner has not filed any reply to the same. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Bhati submitted that since the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was not convincing, the authority while passing the impugned order has not committed any error and the order impugned, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to the respondents, the petitioner was declared disqualified as he was having his third child born after the cut -off date as per Section 19 of the Act, yet he contested the election and was ultimately elected as Sarpanch and now of course the term of the same is over, therefore, the only question which requires consideration is whether the decision is rightly taken holding the petitioner to have incurred disqualification under the Act.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Without going into the details of the case, suffice it to observe that while passing the impugned order, the officer has not given any cogent reasons nor considered the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner in correct perspective and the order impugned is very cryptic and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The officer has not even given any finding whether the evidence produced by the petitioner in the form of birth certificate, horoscopes and other medical evidence is reliable or not. Apart from this, the officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996.;