VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10. 11. 2006 (Annex. 4) passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner in election petition preferred by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner, who was declared elected on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jhajhu by a margin of six votes.
(2.) IN the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhajhu. The said election was held on 21. 1. 2005 and on the same day result of election was declared in which petitioner was declared elected as he got highest number of votes, more specifically petitioner got 1562 votes, whereas respondent nos. 3 and 4 got 1271 and 1556 votes respectively. Further, it is stated that 123 votes were declared invalid. Against the said result of election, election petition was preferred by respondent No. 3 under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1994') read with Section 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 before the District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The main ground taken by the election petitioner before the Election Tribunal that corrupt practice was adopted by the husband of petitioner and her supporters. In the election petition, reply was filed by the petitioner and she disputed the allegation of respondent no. 3 with regard to corrupt practice and specific objection was raised that upon perusal of averments contained in election petition No. 5a to 5l, it is clear that those averments do not disclose any cause of action regarding allegation of corrupt practice. As per petitioner, in absence of any specific allegation of corrupt practice, no election petition can be entertained, therefore, at the threshold the Election Tribunal ought to have dismissed the said election petition. After filing written statement, three issues were framed by the Election Tribunal, Bikaner on 10. 1. 2006 and out of 3 issues framed by the Election Tribunal issue no. 3 was to be decided on as preliminary issue. Accordingly, vide order dated 10. 11. 2006 issue no. 3 was decided in favour of respondent no. 3 and against the petitioner the said order is under challenge in this petition. Counsel for the petitioner, first of all, vehemently argued that election petition filed against her does not disclose any cause of action and the averments made in the election petition are totally vague and not specific with regard to allegation levelled against husband of petitioner and her supporters and this fact was brought to the notice of Election Tribunal but at the time deciding issue no. 3 the Election Tribunal has committed an illegality in deciding the issue no. 3 in favour of election petitioner. As per counsel for the petitioner the learned Election Tribunal has committed an error while not taking into consideration the principle laid down by this Court and by Apex Court in the matter of corrupt practice, therefore, the order dated 10. 11. 2006 (Annex. 4) deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that not only the Election Tribunal has committed an error while ignoring the fact that there is no existence of cause of action in the election petition but has failed to consider the fact that the Apex Court as well as various High Courts including Rajasthan High Court has specifically laid down the law that allegation regarding corrupt practice should be specific and on the basis of vague allegations the Election Tribunal shall not entertain election petition, therefore, obviously this aspect of the matter has completely been ignored by the Election Tribunal while passing the order dated 10. 11. 2006, therefore, the order impugned is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.
(3.) IT is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material evidence or ground in the election petition that alleged corrupt practice was committed with the consent of petitioner, therefore, in absence of specific allegation of corrupt practice, which was said to be committed by the supporters of petitioner with her consent, no election petition can be entertained because consent of the candidate is essential ingredient in cases of corrupt practice and in absence of which, the charge of corrupt practice cannot be sustained. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, Election Tribunal has acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that proof regarding corrupt practice in the case where election of Gram Panchayat is under challenge is not too strict as it is required under the Representation of People Act, 1951. In this regard it is submitted that said finding given by Election Tribunal is absolutely without jurisdiction as the burden of proving the charge of corrupt practice is equally applicable on a person challenging the election of a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat as it is in the case relating to election under Representation of People Act, 1951, therefore, it is obvious that the Election Tribunal has acted in mechanical manner and decided issue no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 3. IT is, therefore, prayed that writ petition may be allowed and order impugned may be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner as invited the attention of this Court towards following judgments: (i) (1996) 3 WLC 161 = (1996 (3) RLW 679) Smt. Manju Sharma vs. Suji Sharma & Anr. (ii) (2001) 8 SCC 233 Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi (iii) AIR 2006 SC 713 Harikirat Singh vs. Amarinder Singh While citing above judgments it is argued that in the election petition it is necessary that allegations of corrupt practice should be specific and material facts and particulars are required to be disclosed and upon perusal of election petition material facts and particulars are not in existence with regard to alleged corrupt practice committed by the petitioner's husband and supporters with her consent. ;