PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON GRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHER

PATNA, India, July 9 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 4:

1)Heard the parties.

2)The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for grant of following reliefs :-

"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Respondent no.8 and contained in his memo no.3817dated 14.10.2024 whereby and where under, exercising his power under Section 136 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayat Act), the Respondent no.8 has beeri pleased to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of municipality of Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi under Kateya Block of Gopalganj District on the ground that according to petitioner's date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate and the marks-sheet produced by the petitioner, his date of birth is 01.06.2001 and therefore, on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper on 03.10.2021, the petitioner was aged about 20 years 4 months and 02 days notwithstanding that for the purposes of ascertainment of petitioner's age, the petitioner was referred to a Medical Board and the Medical Board has assessed his age to be more than 25 years.

(II) For a declaration that if there are other various documents in connection with the age of the petitioner like Adhar Card, PAN card, Passport etc., according to which, the petitioner was born in 1981 i.e. 01.06.1981 and to resolve the controversy, he was referred to Medical Board and Medical Board has assessed the petitioner's age to be more than 25 years on the date when he was examined by the Medical Board, the Respondent no.8 was not justified to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya even if according to the entry made in the matriculation certificate he was under age on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper i.e. 03.10.2021. (III) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS ,commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities for reinstatement of the petitioner to the post which he was holding on or before the passing of impugned order by the Respondent no.8 and communicated by the Respondent no.9 on 14.10.2024.

(IV) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3)Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State Election Commission had notified Panchayat Election, 2021 in Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi in which the petitioner, respondent No.6 and many other candidates had filed their nomination to contest for the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner and the respondent No.6 Smt. Punam Sharma are co-villagers and known to each other but on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, i.e., 03.10.2021, no objection was raised by the respondent No.6 against the validity of petitioner's nomination on any ground whatsoever including his age to contest the election. It is further stated that the petitioner, the respondent No.6, Smt. Punam Sharma and many other candidates contested the election and ultimately after counting of votes, the petitioner was declared elected for the pose of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi.

4)It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the declaration of result in favour of the petitioner by the Returning Officer, a complaint under Section 136(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 was filed by the respondent No.6, Smt. Poonam Sharma before the respondent No.8, i.e., State Election Commissioner, wherein a prayer was made to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat on the ground that his date of birth as per matriculation certificate was 01.06.2001, and therefore, on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, i.e, 03.10.2021, the petitioner was less than 21 years of age, which as per respondent No.6, was a pre-condition to contest the Panchayat election, in view of the provision contained under Section 136 (1) (b) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. For ready reference Section 136(1)(b) of Bihar Panchcyat Raj Act, 2006 is quoted hereinbelow for needful :-

"136. Disqualification for Membership. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as Mukhiya, member of the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the Gram Katchahri, member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila Parishad, if such person- (b)is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State. Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years;

5)Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after service of notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.8, i.e., the State Election Commission and filed his counter affidavit/written statement. As per the petitioner, the petitioner himself had brought on record the matriculation certificate according to which the petitioner's date of birth was 01.06.2001, however, along with his counter affidavit, the petitioner had also placed on record many other records, such as his passport, his driving license, his election photo identity card, his affidavit sworn before Notary Public and his application to the Principal, Higher Secondary School, Dimapur, Gopalganj, requesting therein to correct his date of birth in his matriculation certificate. All these additional documents were brought before the respondent No.8 to prove that the petitioner's date of birth is actually 01.06.1981 and not 01.06.2001. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that after filing of the counter affidavit before the respondent-Commission, the petitioner had also produced his Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Ration Card, Voter list etc to to establish that his date of birth was 01.06.1981. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on his request, the respondent-Commission had granted liberty to the petitioner to get his age assessed by the Medical Board and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner was requested before the Medical Board of Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 30.09.2023 for assessment of his age and after analysis, the Medical Board recorded its finding that the petitioner was more than 25 years of age. The said report of the Medical Board has been annexed with the writ application as Annexure P-4. Subsequently, by letter No. 1336 dated 07.10.2023, the Chairman and member of Medical Board are also said to have informed Principal, S.K.M.C.H., that in their opinion, the petitioner was more than 25 years of age.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTg0MzcjMjAyNCMxI04=-JWq9--am1--uW--ak1--YvU=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.