HEERSINGH Vs. VEERKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal in election matter. The appellants were admittedly not a party to the proceeding before the election tribunal. They have, therefore, along with their memorandum of appeal, also submitted a petition praying for being allowed to institute this appeal. The question is whether we should grant the permission and entertain this appeal. This question is interesting and is also of importance.

(2.) WE may state a few facts bearing on the point which arises for determination. Respondents Veerka (alias Veerka Ram) and Mohabat Singh were declared elected to the legislative assembly of this State from the Sirohi Constituency at the last general election. Veerka was an independent candidate belonging to a scheduled caste for the reserved seat in this constituency and Mohabat Singh was a candidate of the Congress Party for the other seat, which was general. Tejaram was also a candidate for the reserved seat but he was unsuccessful. The latter filed an election petition to the Election Commission, challenging the election of veerka arid Mohabat Singh, which was in due course referred for adjudication to single member Tribunal consisting of Mr. Raj Krishna Mathur, District Judge, Pali. The election petition appears to be principally based on two grounds. The first ground was that the nomination paper of one Tulsa who had also stood up for the reserved seat as a candidate of the Ram Rajya Parishad had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. Tulsa had put down his age as 28 years in his nomination paper, while his age was recorded as 22 years in the material electoral rolls (prepared in the year 1954) with the result that on the latter computation he would be less than 25 years at the relevant point of time, and, therefore, was not eligible to stand for the State Assembly. Tulsa filed an affidavit before the returning Officer in which he swore that his date of birth was Magh Sudi 9, samwat 1985. Still the Returning Officer was not satisfied and so he rejected the nomination paper of Tulsa. The second ground upon which the election petition was founded was that Veerka had committed corrupt practices in the course of his election, and particulars of the alleged corrupt practices were supplied with the election petition.

(3.) VEERKA and Mohabat Singh resisted the petition. It was urged that the nomination paper of Tulsa was rightly rejected as he was in fact below 25 years of age at the crucial date. The alleged corrupt practices were denied by Veerka and mohabat Singh pleaded ignorance thereof.