Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Maya Devi vs Chief Election Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2025
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:39323-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 105/2022
Smt. Maya Devi W/o Shri Phoosa Ram, Aged About 59 Years, B/c
Bheel, R/o Village Rupsi, District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Election Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati
Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner And Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj
Department, Jaipur.
5. The District Collector Cum District Election Officer,
Jaisalmer.
6. The Returning Officer, (S.d.o.) Panchayat Election
Jaisalmer.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer.
8. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Jaisalmer, Head Quarter, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/09/2025
1. By way of present review petition, the petitioner has called in
question, the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court whereby the Division Bench had rejected
petitioner's Special Appeal observing inter alia that the proper
[2025:RJ-JD:39323-DB] (2 of 4) [WRW-105/2022]
course for the petitioner was to file election petition before the
competent court.
2. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the review petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had challenged the administrative
order dated 15.12.2005 by way of a writ petition and learned
Single Judge had wrongly rejected the petitioner's writ petition
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.715/2010) by order dated 19.07.2012.
3. Learned counsel argued that the Division Bench so also
learned Single Judge were not justified in non-suiting the
petitioner on the count of availability of remedy of election
petition. He contended that as and when the petitioner would file
her nomination paper, the same would be rejected in face of the
administrative order dated 15.12.2005 and therefore, such order
which has been passed behind the back of the petitioner was
required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench.
4. Having heard Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel for the review
petitioner and upon perusal of the record, we find that the
petitioner's earlier writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.6695/2006) was allowed by learned Single Judge in light of
judgment dated 02.04.2007 passed in the case of Smt. Sameera
Bano vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W)
No.236/2006).
5. So far as the order dated 27.04.2007 passed in petitioner's
earlier writ petition is concerned, the same was allowed on a
jurisdiction issue that a pre-election disqualification cannot be a
reason to nullify election of an elected candidate, as had been held
[2025:RJ-JD:39323-DB] (3 of 4) [WRW-105/2022]
by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sameera Bano
(supra).
6. Whereas the petitioner's subsequent writ petition (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.715/2010) came to be rejected by the learned
Single Judge inter alia observing that the order dated 15.12.2005,
does not relate to particular election and does not give rise to a
cause of action. While dismissing petitioner's writ petition learned
Single Judge had given a liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate election petition in terms of Section 19(l) of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
7. The basic issue as to whether the petitioner has mothered 5 th
child (more than 2 children) after the cut off date i.e. 27.11.1995
has never been adjudicated. According to us, learned Single Judge
has given appropriate liberty to the petitioner to lay challenge to
rejection of nomination paper (if any) in accordance with law. In
the order dated 02.03.2022, the Division Bench has also made
more or less similar observation and rejected the intra court
appeal filed by the petitioner.
8. As of today, no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner;
the question whether the petitioner has mothered 5 th child as
stated in order dated 15.12.2005 is a factual dispute, which
cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. It requires factual enquiry and leading of evidence.
9. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order dated
02.03.2022 passed by the Division Bench, much less an apparent
error on the face of record calling our interference in Review
Jurisdiction.
[2025:RJ-JD:39323-DB] (4 of 4) [WRW-105/2022]
10. The review petition is, therefore, rejected.
(REKHA BORANA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
9-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
