IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1471 of 2007 SANGITA DEVI wife of Shri Shatrudhan Paswan, Resident of Mohalla- Nathupur Road, P.O.-Kurthaul, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District- Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Election Commission, Bihar Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate-cum-District election Officer, Patna. 6. The Election Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 7. The Block Development Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 8. Punam Devi, wife of Deepak Kumar, Village- Sai Chak, P.O. Anisabad, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Election Commission as well as respondent no.8. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2006 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, whereby he declared the petitioner in eligible for the post of member of Panchayat Samitee of Chilbilli Panchayat under Phulwarisharif Block. The learned State Election Commissioner held that on the date of filing of the nomination paper on 25.03.2006, the petitioner had not completed 21 years of age and as such she could not have validly fought the election for the post of Panchayat Samitee. The petitioner submits that respondent no.-2 has committed factual and legal error while coming to the conclusion that petitioner was ineligible. Learned counsel submits that it would appear from paragraph-2 of the impugned order that as per the voter-list of the year 2003, petitioner’s age was shown as 18 years on 01.01.2003. Further more, the two subsequent voter-lists of the year 2004 and 2006 did not amend the age of the petitioner and as such the same remained - 2 - recorded as 18 years. The grievance is that the respondents in the mechanical way prepared the voter-list without rectifying the age of the petitioner. In support of submissions, the voter-list of 2003 has been annexed as Annexure-6, whereas voter-list of the year 2004 has been annexed as Annexure-7 and the voter-list of the year 2006 has been annexed as Annexure-8. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.-2, by order dated 20.09.2006 asked her to produce voter-list of the year 2003, which she duly produced. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing a transfer certificate issued by Primary School, Bakarpur, Punpun, Patna dated 05.04.1996 wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 22.05.1984. Learned counsel, thus, submits that on the date of election in May, 2006, the petitioner was more than 21 years of age. He further submits that in fact, she completed 21 years of age on 22.05.2005 itself. The petitioner further submits that respondent no.8 has belatedly challenged her election. The last date of scrutiny of nomination paper is 30.03.2006 and the polling was due on 27.05.2006 and thereafter the result was declared and certificate of being elected was issued in June, 2006, vide Annexure-3. The contesting respondent did not raise any dispute earlier. Counsel for the State Election Commissioner submits that on proper scrutiny, the petitioner was found eligible for contesting the election and as such her nomination was declared valid. Counsel for respondent no.-8 submits that petitioner did not produce the certificate granted by the school authority earlier before - 3 - respondent no.-2. He submits that this shows that the same was belatedly procured with ulterior motive. Learned counsel referred to the affidavit portion of the writ application and submits that the age of petitioner was written as 21 years on 04.12.2006. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 21 years of age was a rough estimate which was mentioned inadvertently in the affidavit portion, in this Court. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the earlier voter-list of the year 2003, as contained in Annexure-6, shows the petitioner’s age as 18 years. Though the name of the petitioner figured in the voter-lists of the year 2004 and 2006 but the age remained as 18 years, as mentioned in the earlier voter-list of 2003. Even if the contention of the respondent is accepted, the petitioner could not have been remained 18 years of age on 01.01.2004 as well as also 18 years on 01.01.2005. Thus, the fallacy regarding the entry of date of birth which went unrectified is apparent in the subsequent voter-lists. Further more, the School certificate annexed also shows that petitioner is more than 21 years of age, on the date of election. There is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid certificate has been procured with an ulterior motive. The age of the petitioner mentioned in the affidavit portion filed before this Court in hand writing as 21 years on 04.12.2006 would not improve the case of the respondents that she was not 21 years of age on the date of election, in view of documentary evidence like voter-list of 2003, the School Certificate and the assertion of being 21 years in the writ - 4 - application as well. In the result, the impugned order passed by respondent no.-2 dated 25.10.2006 is set aside. However, the decision of this case would not come in the way of respondent no.8, in pursing her claim that the school certificate annexed by the petitioner may not be a genuine one. This application is allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)