Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Priyanka Vinayak Ranmale, submitted her nomination for election to the Gram Panchayat Mirpur from Ward No. 2. Respondent No. 6, Parvati Changdeo Dhatrak, objected on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of age and was thus disqualified. The Returning Officer upheld the objection and rejected the nomination, relying solely on the voters list which showed the petitioner's age as 20 years. The petitioner had produced a Transfer Certificate from her college showing her date of birth, which indicated she was 22 years and 7 months old. The Returning Officer, citing Dhondba Adku v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, AIR 1967 Bombay 232, refused to consider the Transfer Certificate, stating that the voters list could not be challenged indirectly. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The court held that the Returning Officer's approach was arbitrary and illegal. The voters list is not conclusive proof of age, and the Returning Officer has the duty to consider all relevant evidence. The decision in Dhondba Adku was not applicable as the petitioner was not challenging the voters list but seeking consideration of her Transfer Certificate. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Returning Officer to reconsider the nomination afresh, considering the Transfer Certificate and any other evidence, and pass a reasoned order within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Age Qualification - Returning Officer's Duty - The Returning Officer must consider all relevant evidence regarding a candidate's age, not merely rely on the voters list. The voters list is not conclusive proof of age, and the Returning Officer can independently verify the age from other documents like Transfer Certificate. (Paras 3-6) B) Election Law - Nomination Rejection - Arbitrariness - Rejection of nomination based solely on voters list without considering other evidence is arbitrary and illegal. The Returning Officer's reliance on Dhondba Adku v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, AIR 1967 Bombay 232, which held that voters list cannot be challenged indirectly, was misplaced as the petitioner was not challenging the voters list but seeking consideration of her Transfer Certificate. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the petitioner's nomination for Gram Panchayat election solely on the basis of age mentioned in the voters list, ignoring the Transfer Certificate showing a different date of birth.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Returning Officer is set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to reconsider the petitioner's nomination afresh, considering the Transfer Certificate and any other evidence, and pass a reasoned order within two weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Election law
- Age qualification
- Returning Officer's duty to consider all evidence
- Voters list not conclusive proof of age
- Transfer Certificate as valid evidence
