Guman Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 has been placed before this Court at the behest of the petitioner Guman Singh seeking a writ of quo-

warranto for challenging election of the respondent Vinod Kumar on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ujala, Panchayat Samiti Sankda, District

Jaisalmer on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite qualifications to be elected as a Sarpanch in view of the restrictions contained in Section

19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.

Facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.4 Vinod Kumar (the returned candidate) contested election for the post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat

Ujala and filled his nomination form on 17.01.2015. The petitioner, who is a resident of the said gram panchayat, claims that while filling the nomination

form, the respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘returned candidate’) intentionally and fraudulently concealed material facts in reference

to Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act.

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the returned candidate has concealed material information in the nomination papers regarding his

criminal antecedents and with an ulterior motive, filled the word ‘NIL’ in the relevant columns of the form whereas the fact is that an FIR

No.219/2010 dated 17.10.2010 was registered at Police Station Pokran, District Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 353, 336, 283 and

435 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act and a charge-sheet had also been filed in the said case against the returned candidate and another co-

accused. Apart from the aforesaid case, the returned candidate is also arrayed as an accused in criminal case No.222/2006 wherein, he was arrested

on 21.09.2013 and was sent to judicial custody and was released on bail on 24.09.2013. Charges were framed against the returned candidate in the

same case. However, the returned candidate intentionally omitted to mention these facts at point No.1 and 2 of the nomination form regarding the

information in respect of pendency of criminal cases and framing of charges against him. The petitioner has further pleaded that had these material

facts regarding pendency of criminal cases been mentioned in the declaration form/ nomination form, the returned candidate would have been

automatically disqualified from contesting the election. Attributing the said disqualification to Shri Vinod Kumar, the petitioner has challenged his

election through this writ of quo-warranto. Prior to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an election petition before the learned District Judge,

Jaisalmer but the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2015 on the ground that the election petition was filed by a voter and as per Rule 80 and

81 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, the same could only have been filed by a candidate at the election.

The respondents, have filed individual replies to the writ petition claiming the election petition filed by the petitioner was maintainable as per Rules 80

and 81 of the Rules of 1994 and they have opposed the instant writ petition on the ground that the question which has already been raised in the

election petition may not be examined by this Court in a writ of quo-warranto.

Shri R.K. Charan representing the petitioner relies upon this Court’s Judgment in the case of Dharm Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported

in 2008(1) DNJ (Raj.) 262 and Full Bench Judgment in the case of Smt. Sameera Bano vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2007(2) WLC

(Raj.) 526 wherein, it has been held that pre-election disqualification, as provided in Section 19 of the Act, can be examined by the competent authority

under Section 39(2) of the Act of 1994 and as regards the election dispute, a candidate of election can always question even pre-election

disqualification by way of election petition as provided under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 which includes pre-election disqualifications as permissible grounds for challenging the election of an elected

candidate. On the strength of these decisions, Shri Charan craved acceptance of the writ petition and the issuance of a writ of quowarranto with a

direction for cessation of the candidature of the returned candidate (respondent No.4) as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Ujala. Per contra, Shri

Kuldeep Singh associate to Shri Manish Patel, AGC learned counsel representing the respondents Nos.1 to 3, Shri Vineet R. Dave learned counsel

representing the respondent No.4, the Returned Candidate and Shri Param Veer Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5, opposed the

submissions advanced by Shri Charan and urged that since the petitioner had already availed remedy of election petition to challenge the election of

the respondent No.4 and such election petition stands rejected, this Court should not interfere in the election of the returned candidate by exercising

the quo-warranto writ jurisdiction. Shri Vineet R. Dave, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4, the returned candidate has filed detailed

written submissions for opposing the prayer made in the writ petition. Substantially, the objections which have been taken in the reply have been

repeated in the written submissions. However, at paras Nos.5 to 8 of the written submissions, it has been averred that the answering respondent (the

Returned Candidate) herein did not furnish any wrong information in the nomination form. It is contended that as per Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, only the details of such case in which, the competent court has taken cognizance and has framed charge against the candidate,

are required to be disclosed and that too when the offence alleged carries punishment of imprisonment of 5 years or more. As regards the FIR

No.219/2010 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Pokhran, it is stated that the competent court had not framed charge against the

returned candidate till the date of the submission of the nomination form i.e. 17.01.2015. To support such contention, the certified copy of order-sheet

dated 10.04.2015 has been annexed as per which, the Court of ACJM, Pokhran, took cognizance against the various accused including Vinod Kumar,

the returned candidate for the offences under Section 147, 149, 353, 336, 283 and 435 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. Reliance has been placed

by the respondent No.4 in the written submissions on Division Bench decision in the case of Gopal Singh vs. Election Tribunal-cumAdditional Civil

Judge, reported in AIR 2009 (Raj.) 100 to buttress the contention that the election of the respondent cannot be called into question on the ground of

alleged non-disclosure of the material fact.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

Suffice it to say that the petitioner in his entire writ petition, has nowhere pleaded that the competent criminal court had framed charges against the

respondent No.4 (the returned candidate) for an offence punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more by the date of submission of nomination

form. It is specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the respondent Vinod Kumar concealed the fact regarding registration of two criminal cases

while filing the nomination papers. As per Rule 25(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, an aspiring candidate has to furnish

information in the prescribed format while filing the nomination forum. The column 4(Gha) of the proforma mandates the asiring candidate to furnish

information regarding criminal cases registered against him/her. The petitioner has specifically alleged that the respondent No.4 intentionally concealed

the factum of the criminal cases while furnishing this information at column No.4(Gha) of the nomination form while the returned candidate has denied

this aspersion. To appreciate this contention, the relevant extract of the nomination form is produced hereinbelow:-

“^Åtyk¡ xzke iapk;r ls ljiap ds fuokZpu ds fy, fjVfuZax vf/kdkjh ds le{k vH;FkhZ }kjk nh tkus okyh ?kks’k.kkA

eSa fouksn dqekj iq= Jh /kujkt vk;q 27 oâ€kZ fuoklh ukFkwlj rgÅ' iksdj.k ftyk& tSlyesj tks mDr fuokZpu dk vH;FkhZ gSa] blds }kjk fuEufyf[kr ?

kks’k.kk djrk gwW %&

fd eSa fdlh yfEcr dsl ¼dslksa½ esa ,sls vijk/k ¼vijk/kksa½ dk vfHk;qDr ugha gwW tks ikap o’kZ ;k vf/kd ds dkjkokl ls n.Muh; gS ftlesa

l{ke vf/kdkfjrk okys U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky;ksa½ }kjk vkjksi ¼vkjksiksa½ fojfpr dj fn;s x;s gSA

;fn vfHklk{kh ¼vH;FkhZ½ ,sls fdlh vijk/k ¼vijk/kksa½ dk vfHk;qDr gS rks og fuEufyf[kr lwpuk nsxk%&

(i)Â Â Â Â Â dsl@izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k@la[;k,a & -------------------- Nil------------------------ Nil------------------------

(ii)    iqfyl Fkkuk ¼Fkkus½ -------------------- Nil ------------------------ ftyk ¼ftys½ -------------------- Nil ----------------------- jkT; ------

----------- Nil ------------------------

(iii)   lacaf/kr vf/kfu;e ¼vf/kfu;eksa½ dh /kkjk ¼/kkjk,sa½ vkSj vijk/k ¼vijk/kksa½ dk laf{kIr fooj.k ftuds fy, vH;FkhZ vkjksfir gS

%& -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(iv)   U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky;ksa½ ftlus vkjksi ¼vkjksiksa½ dks fojfpr fd;k gS -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(v)    rkjh[k ¼rkjh[ksa½ ftudks vkjksi ¼vkjksiksa½ dk fojpu fd;k x;k gS -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(vi)   D;k l{ke vf/kdkfjrk okys fdlh U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky;ksa½ }kjk lHkh ;k fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa esa LFkxu fn;k x;k gS -------------------- Nil ---

---------------------;fn gkW] rks U;k;ky; dk uke -------------------- Nil -----------------------vkns’k dh rkjh[k -------------------- Nil -----------------------

-

2- fd eq>s fdlh vijk/k ¼vijk/kksa½ ds fy, nks’kfl) vkSj nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS@ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;fn vfHklk{kh ¼vH;FkhZ½ nks’kfl) vkSj

nf.Mr gS rks og fuEufyf[kr lwpuk nsxk %&

(i)Â Â Â Â Â dsl@izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k@la[;k,a & -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(ii)    U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky;ksa½ ftlus nf.Mr fd;k -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(iii)   iqfyl Fkkuk ¼Fkkus½ --------------------N il ------------------------ ftyk ¼ftys½ ------------------- Nil ---------------------- jkT; ----------

--------- Nil ----------------------

(iv)   lacaf/kr vf/kfu;e ¼vf/kfu;eksa½ dh /kkjk ¼/kkjk,a½ vkSj vijk/k ¼vijk/kksa½ dk laf{kIr fooj.k ftuds fy, vH;FkhZ dHkh vkjksfir

gqvk gS %& -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(v)    og rkjh[k ¼rkjh[ksa½ ftudks n.Mknsâ€​k lquk;k x;k ¼lquk;s x;s½-------------------- Nil ------------------------

(vi)Â Â Â n.M dk C;kSjk -------------------- Nil ------------------------

(vii)   D;k n.Mknsâ€​k ¼n.Mknsâ€​kksa½ ij fdlh l{ke vf/kdkfjrk okys fdlh U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky;ksa½ }kjk LFkxu fn;k x;k gS ¼C;kSjk ns½

-------------------- Nil ------------------------

(viii)  D;k nks’kflf) ¼nks’kflf);ksa½ ij fdlh l{ke vf/kdkfjrk okys U;k;ky; ¼U;k;ky;ksa½ }kjk Lfkxu vknsâ€k fn;k x;k gS ¼C;kSjk

ns½-------------------- Nil ------------------------**

Manifestly, on a perusal of this entire column of the nomination form, it is apparent that the contesting candidate has to furnish details of such criminal

case in which, he/she has been charged by the competent court for offences punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more. Even as per the

highest case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition, there is no such allegation that the respondent No.4 Vinod Kumar (the Returned Candidate)

had been charged by the competent court for an offence punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more by the date, he filed the nomination papers

i.e. 17.01.2015. As per Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, the disqualification which is prescribed prohibiting a person from

contesting election as a Panch or Member is that he/she should not have been charged by the criminal court for an offence punishable with

imprisonment of 5 years or more. Mere registration of a criminal case would not entail the disqualification under Section 19 of the Panchayati Raj Act.

This being the factual situation, manifestly, the petitioner has failed to make out a case that the respondent No.4 was in any manner disqualified from

contesting the election as a Panch/ Member of the Gram Panchayat.

Hence, no ground is made out so as to issue a writ of quowarranto while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of the respondent No.4 Vinod Kumar.

Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.