1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7835/06 Ratiram vs. Devi Charan & Anr. Date of order : 18/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri K.N. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri D.K. Garg for the respondent no.1 Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondent no.2. ****** REPORTABLE This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shri Ratiram against the judgement dated 27.9.2006 by which the election petition filed by respondent no.1 was allowed and election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Domai, Panchayat Samiti Basedi, District Dholpur was set aside. Shri K.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset stated that in view of the fact that original term for which the petitioner was elected has come to an end and fresh election to the Gram Panchayat Domai has been announced, therefore, he would confine his prayer for relief in the writ petition only to the extent that if he is not held disqualified, 2 that should enable him to contest the fresh election. Shri K.N. Sharma, the learned counsel submitted that the Election Tribunal has misconstrued and misinterpreted Section 19 (l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, (for short-`the Act of 1994') which provides that every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of a Panchayati Raj Institution shall be qualified for election as a Panch, or as the case may be, a member of such Panchayati Raj Institution unless such person has more than two children. The Act by which the aforesaid provision was inserted itself commenced on 23.4.1994. But, the fourth proviso introduced by way of amendment carved out an exception by providing that an additional children shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of the disqualification mentioned in Clause (1) and a person having more than two children (excluding the child if any, born during the period from the date of such commencement to 27 th November, 1995) shall not be disqualified under that clause for so long 3 as the number of children he had on the date of commencement of this Act does not increase. The amendment Act came into force or commenced from 27.11.1995. Learned counsel submitted that by mere use of the word “an additional child” in the law legislature did not envisage only one child to be excluded, even if two children are born out of the wedlock of marriage of a person between 23.4.1994 and 27.11.1995. Learned counsel referred to Section 14(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1955 (for short- `the Act of 1955) and argued that according to said provision in all Rajasthan laws, unless a different intention appears, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that since proviso (iv) to Section 19 clearly uses the expression “an additional child”, the learned Election Tribunal has rightly held this to be one one additional child and therefore since as per evidence led before the Tribunal, a daughter by the name Priyanka was born out of the 4 wedlock of the petitioner's marriage on 8.7.1994 and a son Bablu on 12.10.1995, election of the petitioner was rightly set aside because only one child was permissible for being excluded for the purpose of Section 19(l) of the Act. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In order to decide the present controversy, it would be apposite to extract hereunder the relevant provisions of Section 19(l) with its proviso (iv) of the Act of 1994 and Section 14(2) of the Act of 1955: “Sec.19. Qualifications for election as a Panch or a member- Every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of a Panchayati Raj Institution shall be qualified for election as a Panch or, as the case may be, a member of such Panchayati Raj Institution unless such person- (a)xxxxxxx (b)xxxxxxx (c)xxxxxxx (d)xxxxxxx (e)xxxxxxx (f)xxxxxxx (g)xxxxxxx (h)xxxxxxx (i)xxxxxxx (j)xxxxxxx (k)xxxxxxx (l) has more than two children; Provided that- (i)xxxxxxxx 5 (ii)xxxxxxx (iii)xxxxxx (iv) the birth during the period from the date of commencement of the Act, hereinafter in this proviso referred to as the date of such commencement, to 27 th November, 1995, of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of this disqualification mentioned in clause (1) and a person having more than two children (excluding the child, if any, born during the period from the date of such commencement to 27 th November, 1995) shall not be disqualified under that clause for so long as the number of children he had on the date of commencement of this Act does not increase.” (underlining mine) “Section 14-Gender and number:-In all Rajasthan laws, unless a different intention appears- (1)xxxxxxxxxxx (2) words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa.” It would be evident on perusal of proviso (iv) to Section 19 that the legislature intended to exclude the additional child born between the original date of commencement of the Act i.e. 23.4.1994 and the date of commencement of the amendment Act i.e. 27.11.1995. It is not in dispute that wife of the petitioner gave birth to two additional children namely a daughter Priyanka on 8.7.1994 and a son Bablu on 12.10.1995. By mere reason of the fact that proviso (iv) at one place has used 6 the expression “an additional child”, the learned Election Tribunal was not justified in concluding that only one child would be excluded for the purpose of computation of outer limit, so as to determine the disqualification attached to a candidate. There is no warrant for attributing such a restricted meaning to the phraseology used by the legislature. In the later part of the proviso (iv), it is clearly stated that a person having more than two children, excluding the child, if any, born during the period from the date of commencement of the Act to 27.11.1995, shall not be disqualified. Expression “the child” used in later part of the proviso is comprehensive enough to indicate that legislature intended the children born between the above referred to two dates for being excluded. It could be one child or even two. Even otherwise, Sec- 14(2) of the Act of 1955 categorically provides that in all Rajasthan laws, unless a different intention appears, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. It cannot be said that the use of the word “an additional child” indicates any 7 different intention of the legislature because no such contextual meaning can be attached to that proviso, particularly when the complete reading of the proviso clearly leads to only one interpretation that if a person is having more than two children, excluding the child, if any, born during the period from the date of original commencement of the Act i.e. 23.4.1994 to 27.11.1995, he shall not be disqualified so long as the number of children, he had on the date of commencement of this Act, does not increase. Commencement of the Act has to be taken as the starting point and 27.11.1995 as the terminal point and the children born between these two dates viz. original date of the commencement of the Act and the date of commencement of the amendment Act being excluded, the petitioner would not be disqualified under clause (l) of Section 19, to contest the election. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgement dated 27.9.2006 is set aside. However, by virtue of this judgement, petitioner is only 8 declared qualified to contest the election of the post of Sarpanch, to which he was elected and would only now be entitled to contest the ensuing elections to Gram Panchayat Domai, Panchayat Samiti Basedi, District Dholpur. There shall be no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/