Md. Aftab Ansar vs State Election Commission And Ors

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand (respondent

no.2) in Case No. 15 of 2015 whereby the petitioner has been disqualified from holding the post of Ward Councilor of Ward No. 40 of Dhanbad

Nagar Nigam with immediate effect and further ordered that the disqualification shall cease after 6 years of the General Municipal Election, 2015.

The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was elected on the post of Ward Councilor of Ward No. 40,

Dhanbad Nagar Nigam, Dhanbad in pursuant of the election conducted for the said post in the year 2015. The respondent no. 3 alongwith others made

a complaint against the petitioner before the State Election Commission, Jharkhand alleging inter-alia that the petitioner has concealed the fact about

the criminal cases against him at the time of filing of nomination form and has contested the election by changing his name. Pursuant to notice dated

24.08.2015 issued by the respondent no.1, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 5. 10.2015 before the State Election Commission, Jharkhand and

denied the allegations levelled against him and also filed documents in support of his contention. The respondent no. 2 vide order dated 25.02.2016

disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Councilor of Ward no. 40 of Dhanbad Nagar Nigam with a further direction that the disqualification

shall cease after six years of the General Municipal Election, 2015.

Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Election Commission had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case

and thereby to declare the petitioner disqualified from being Ward Councilor of Ward No.40 of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. Mr. Sahay while

inviting attention of this Court to section 580 of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (in short ‘ the Act, 2011’) submits that if the election to an office

of a Municipal Corporation is under dispute, the election petition would lie before the Sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction the Municipal Corporation is

situated. Mr. Sahay further submits that Section 584 of the Act, 2011 deals with the ground for declaring the election to be void. Sub-section (1) of

Section 584 of the Act, 2011 refers to the prescribed authority for declaring the election to be void and if the same is read with the provision of Section

580 of the Act, 2011, the prescribed authority can only be said to be the Sub-Judge of competent jurisdiction. Since the petitioner has been alleged to

have adopted corrupt practice, the situation provided in Section 584(1)(b) of the Act, 2011 would be applicable and, thus, his candidature would have

only been challenged by way of an election petition. Even after the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Ward Councilor, the

affected party could have filed an election petition in view of the provisions of Section 584(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iv) of the Act, 2011. It is also submitted that

Section 586 of the Act, 2011 deals with corrupt practice. If the omission on the part of the petitioner in filling up the nomination form is treated to be a

corrupt practice, it was under the jurisdiction of the concerned Sub-Judge to adjudicate upon the same in an election petition preferred by the affected

person/candidate. The condition of disqualification of Councilor has been provided under Section 18 of the Act, 2011. Section 18(1)(k) of the Act,

2011 provides one of such conditions that if the councilor has been found guilty of corrupt practice, he would be disqualified as a councilor. However,

if the provision of Section 587 of the Act, 2011 is simultaneously looked into, it would be apparent that the councilor would be disqualified on the

finding of the prescribed authority with regard to commission of the said corrupt practice and since the prescribed authority in this case is the Sub-

Judge of its jurisdiction, the State Election Commission could not have assumed jurisdiction, declaring the petitioner disqualified from being Ward

Councilor of Ward No.40 of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and debarring him for six years. Even as per the mandate of Article 243(V) of the

Constitution of India, since the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 2011 confer jurisdiction upon the Sub-Judge of the competent jurisdiction to try the

matters relating to disqualification of Ward Councilor, the impugned order passed by the State Election Commission is without jurisdiction. Moreover,

in terms with Article 243(Z)(G) of the Constitution of India, the election of any municipality cannot be put to question except by way of an election

petition presented to such authority in such manner or in terms with any law made by the state legislature. Since the provision seeking challenge to any

election has been made under Section 580 of the Act, 2011 by way of an election petition, the State Election Commission has no jurisdiction to declare

the petitioner disqualified from the election of Ward Council of Dhanabad Municipal Corporation. It is further submitted that the provision of Article

243(Z)(G) of the Constitution of India is similar to that of Section 583 of the Act, 2011. Since Article 243(Z)(G) of the Constitution of India and

Section 583 of the Act, 2011 start with non-obstante clause, these have overriding effect over the other related provisions of the Constitution and the

Act, 2011 and thus, there cannot be any other mode to disqualify the petitioner, who has already been elected as Ward Councilor in Municipal

Election, 2015.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the eventuality mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, 2011 is for the

period prior to a candidate getting elected in any municipal election. Once a candidate is declared elected and a certificate is given to him in Form-22,

the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, 2011 would not apply. Once the election is over and a candidate is declared elected, Section

583 of the Act, 2011 comes into operation which puts bar in entertaining election dispute by any court except the court constituted under the Act, 2011

for entertaining the election petition. Thus, the State Election Commission has wrongly assumed its jurisdiction under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2011

declaring the petitioner to be disqualified. It is also submitted that on further reading the provisions of Chapter-XIII as well as Chapter-XV of the Act,

2011, it may be construed that any issue regarding disqualification of candidate can only be raised through election petition. Mr. Sahay submits that so

far as Jora Pokhar P.S. Case no. 147 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner did not receive any summons from the criminal court till the date of filing of

the nomination and thus, non-mentioning of the said case in Appendix-VIII to the nomination form cannot be treated to be suppression/concealment on

the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the other case i.e. Chakradharpur P.S. Case no. 97 of 2004 was an old case in which though the

petitioner was convicted by the trial court, yet in appeal, he was released on probation. The petitioner, however, did not mention the said case due to

inadvertence and omission on his part. Had any election petition been filed on the said issue, the petitioner would have suitably replied the

circumstances under which, he did not mention about his conviction in the said case.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while putting reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in Election Petition no. 06 of

2014 (decided on 08.08.2017) submits that unless the lodging of any criminal case legally comes to the knowledge of a candidate i.e. by receipt of

summons, filing bail application in connection with the said criminal case etc., it cannot be presumed that the candidate has suppressed the fact

regarding any pending criminal case while filling up the affidavit in the nomination form thereby making the said candidate disqualified to contest the

said election. Therefore, as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the presumption that the petitioner knew about the institution/lodging of Jora Pokhar

Case No. 147 of 2014, cannot be applied against him.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the provisions of Rule 112 of Jharkhand Nagarpalika Nirvachan Ewam Chunaw

Yachika Niyamwalai, 2012, it has been prescribed that if a person gives a wrong information deliberately which he was supposed to furnish in his

affidavit or in the nomination paper, his candidature may be put to an end in a proceeding under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2011. Since the petitioner

has mentioned about the two pending cases in his affidavit, non-mentioning of Chakradharpur P.S. Case no. 97 of 2004 in which he was released on

probation in the year 2008 itself by the learned appellate court, it cannot be presumed that the same was intentional. In fact, the same occurred due to

omission and inadvertence on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be made a strong reason for declaring the petitioner disqualified

from being a Ward Councilor in Dhanbad Municipal Corporation.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State Election Commission, Jharkhand submits that the power of declaring a

candidate disqualified to contest the election and the power of appropriate court to entertain an election petition putting challenge to the election of a

candidate are different from each other. Learned counsel while referring to the provisions of Articles 191 and 192 of the Constitution of India submits

that Article 191 deals with the conditions on which a member of Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State can be declared to be

disqualified from being member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, whereas Article 192 confers power upon the Governor of the

State to take a final decision in the matter of such disqualification of a member after obtaining opinion from the Election Commission. Article 329 puts

bar on the Courts to interfere with electoral matters. The said Article starts with a non-obstante clause. Moreover, Article 329(b) of the Constitution

of India provides that no election to either House of the Parliament or to Legislature of the State shall be called in question except by way of election

petition. This does not mean that the Governor of the State cannot exercise the power under Article 192 of the Constitution of India, so far as the

disqualification of a member is concerned. Moreover, if the provisions of Section 80, 80(A) and 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 are

taken into consideration, it would appear that the High Court of a State has the power to try an election petition on the given condition of

disqualification of a candidate. However, this would also not mean that the power conferred to the Governor of the State under Article 192 with

regard to disqualification of a member of the State Legislature would become inoperative or redundant. Similarly, Article 243-V of the Constitution of

India provides for disqualification of a person from being chosen as a member of municipality. Article 243-V(2) of the Constitution of India provides

that if any question arises as to whether a member of a Municipality has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the

question shall be referred for the decision to such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. In view of the

aforesaid enabling power conferred to the State under Article 243-V(2) of the Constitution of India, the Legislature of the State of Jharkhand

incorporated Section 18(1) in the Act, 2011 which provides the condition for declaring any person to be disqualified for the municipal election or after

the election is conducted, for holding the office as a Councilor. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, 2011 confers the power to the State Election

Commission to decide a question with regard to disqualification of such person.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged herein the order of the

respondent no. 2 whereby he has been disqualified from the post of Councilor with a further direction that his disqualification shall cease after six

years of the General Municipal Election, 2015.

The thrust of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 had got no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the

matter relating to disqualification of the petitioner, rather in view of specific provision contained in Section 580 of the Act, 2011, it is only the Sub-

Judge within whose jurisdiction the municipal corporation is situated, could have heard the matter and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained in

law having been passed without jurisdiction.

I have perused Sections 580, 583 and 584 of the Act, 2011, which read as under:

“S. 580. Election Petition-

(1) The election to any office of a municipality shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed:

Provided that if an election to any office of a Nagar Panchyat is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within

whose jurisdiction such Nagar Panchyat is situated and if the election to any office of Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation is

under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such municipality is situated.

Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act -

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of wards or the allotment of seats to such wards, made or purporting to be made under

Article 243 ZA of the Constitution of India shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) no election to any municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this

Act.

Grounds for declaring election to be voidâ€

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion â€

(a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a councillor under this Act;

or -

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned

candidate or his agent; or

(c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected -

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent; or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare

the election of the returned candidate to be void.

(2) If in the opinion of the prescribed authority, any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but the

prescribed authority is satisfied -

(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to

the orders and without the consent of the candidate;

(b) that the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and

(c) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; the prescribed

authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.

The proviso of Section 580 of the Act, 2011 speaks that if an election of a Nagar Panchayat is in dispute, the election petition shall be presented

before the Munsif and if the election to any office of Municipal council and Municipal Corporation is under dispute, the election petition shall be

presented before the Sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such municipality is situated. The ground on which the election shall be declared void is

enumerated in Section 584 of the Act, 2011 wherein, apart from other grounds, one of the grounds is corrupt practice.

I have also perused Section 18 of the Act, 2011 which starts with non-obstante clause and provides that any person shall be disqualified for

election and after election, for holding the office as councilor if any of the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) is fulfilled. Sub-section (2) speaks

about the authority by whom the question of disqualification referred to in sub-section (1) shall be determined. It specifically provides that such

question shall be determined by the State Election Commission either on reference or on a complaint made by any person or on its own motion after

giving sufficient opportunity to the affected parties. Sub-section (1) contains the ground under which the election of any person shall be held

disqualified and under that sub-section, apart from other grounds, one of the grounds is that if the elected member has been found guilty of corrupt

practice.

Both Section 18 and 584 of the Act, 2011 speak that if it is found that the elected member is guilty of corrupt practice, then he may be declared

disqualified but for the disqualification enumerated in Section 18, the power has been conferred to the State Election Commission under sub-section 2

of section 18 itself which contains non-obstante clause. Thus, it cannot be said that question as to the disqualification can only be determined by the

Munsif or Sub-Judge as the case may be. The basic distinction between Section 580 and section 18(2) of the Act, 2011 is that the State Election

Commission while exercising power under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2011 can declare a person, before or after the election is conducted, as

disqualified on the conditions enumerated in sub-section(1) of Section 18 of the Act, 2011, whereas Section 580 of the Act, 2011 confers power to the

appropriate court to declare the election of a candidate null and void on the conditions mentioned in the relevant provisions. The power conferred

under Section 18(2) of the Act, 2011 to the State Election Commission and the power to try an election petition by the appropriate Court under Section

580 of the Act, 2011 operate parallel and independent of each other. However, if the State Election Commission assumes power under Section 18(2)

of the Act, 2011 with regard to the question of disqualification of a Councilor, the same cannot be put to question merely because some of the said

powers of the State Election Commission declaring a member to be disqualified as a Councilor is also one of the grounds for declaring the election to

be null and void by way of an election petition.

It appears from the record that in the complaint filed before the State Election Commission, it was alleged that in the affidavit filed with the

nomination form, the petitioner did not mention the fact about two criminal cases which were related to him. In relation to Jora Pokhar P.S case No.

147 of 2014, the contention of the petitioner is that at the time of filing of the nomination form, he had no knowledge about the pendency of that case

because at that time, no summon etc. was issued in his name. The respondent no. 2 has however come to a finding that there is no legitimate reason

for the petitioner to be unaware of a criminal case filed against him 11 months prior to filing of the affidavit. I am of the view that no cogent evidence

was on record before the respondent no. 2 so as to come to a definite finding that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of Jora Pokhar P.S

Case No. 147 of 2014.

However, so far as the other case i.e. Chakradharpur P.S. Case no. 97 of 2004 is concerned, the petitioner has himself admitted that he was

convicted and sentenced for one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- by the learned trial court and in appeal, the appellate court i.e. Sessions Judge, West

Singhbhum at Chaibasa vide judgment dated 07.03.2008 affirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court and the petitioner was released

under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Now, coming to the affidavit which was required to be filled by the petitioner at the time of nomination form. Under para 5(iii), the query was put

as to whether the candidate has been sentenced for more than six months by any court of India or outside for any offence other than political offence.

The petitioner, in answer to the said query, stated ‘NIL’ though he was sentenced for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- in Chakradharpur P.S

case No. 97 of 2004. Further, under para 5(iv)(C) and (D), the query was put as to whether the appeal filed against the order of sentence has been

disposed of and if yes then describe about the result of the same, the petitioner stated under the said query “NIL†whereas the fact was that the

appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of and the conviction was affirmed, however he was released under section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act.

Thus, the petitioner did not provide specific information about the Chakardharpur P.S Case No. 97 of 2004 in the affidavit submitted at the time of

filing of nomination form. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner however tried to convince this Court that the omission to mention the details of

G.R No. 262 of 2004/T.R. No. 75 of 2004 in the affidavit while filing of nomination form was not intentional, rather due to inadvertence as the case

was an old one.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and others, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467

in para 91 held as under:-

“91. The purpose of referring to the instructions of the Election Commission is that the affidavit sworn by the candidate has to be put in

public domain so that the electorate can know. If they know the half truth, as submits Mr Salve, it is more dangerous, for the electorate is

denied of the information which is within the special knowledge of the candidate. When something within special knowledge is not

disclosed, it tantamounts to fraud, as has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath. While filing the nomination form, if the

requisite information, as has been highlighted by us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not given, indubitably, there is an attempt to

suppress, effort to misguide and keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably and undisputedly is undue influence and, therefore,

amounts to corrupt practice. It is necessary to clarify here that if a candidate gives all the particulars and despite that he secures the votes

that will be an informed, advised and free exercise of right by the electorate. That is why there is a distinction between a disqualification

and the corrupt practice. In an election petition, the election petitioner is required to assert about the cases in which the successful

candidate is involved as per the rules and how there has been non-disclosure in the affidavit. Once that is established, it would amount to

corrupt practice. We repeat at the cost of repetition, it has to be determined in an election petition by the Election Tribunal.â€​

In the aforesaid case, it has been specifically held that if any candidate does not disclose the fact of criminal antecedent at the time of filing the

nomination paper, it will amount to corrupt practice.

In the case of Union of India Vs. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“46. To sum up the legal and constitutional position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion, it can be stated that:

The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the word

“electionsâ€​ is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces many steps.

The limitation on plenary character of power is when Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law relating to or in connection

with elections, the Commission is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir

of power to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair election. The Constitution has taken care of leaving scope for exercise of

residuary power by the Commission in its own right as a creature of the Constitution in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge

from time to time in a large democracy, as every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the rules. By

issuing necessary directions, the Commission can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on the subject. In KanhiyaLal Omar case the Court

construed the expression “superintendence, direction and controlâ€​ in Article 324(1) and held that a direction may mean an order issued

to a particular individual or a precept which many may have to follow and it may be a specific or a general order and such phrase should

be construed liberally empowering the Election Commission to issue such orders.

The word “elections†includes the entire process of election which consists of several stages and it embraces many steps, some of

which may have an important bearing on the process of choosing a candidate. Fair election contemplates disclosure by the candidate of his

past including the assets held by him so as to give a proper choice to the candidate according to his thinking and opinion. As stated earlier,

in Common Cause case the Court dealt with a contention that elections in the country are fought with the help of money power which is

gathered from black sources and once elected to power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money, which is used for retaining power

and for re-election. If on an affidavit a candidate is required to disclose the assets held by him at the time of election, the voter can decide

whether he could be re-elected even in case where he has collected tons of money.

Presuming, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel MrAshwani Kumar, that this condition may not be much effective for breaking a

vicious circle which has polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount would be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this would have

its own effect as a step-in-aid and voters may not elect law-breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy may blossom.

To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Commission can ask the

candidates about the expenditure incurred by the political parties and this transparency in the process of election would include

transparency of a candidate who seeks election or re-election. In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of

this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to

bind his liberty and property may be enacted.

The right to get information in democracy is recognised all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. At

this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is as under:

“(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and

ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.â€​

On cumulative reading of a plethora of decisions of this Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for legislature and

executive is left unoccupied detrimental to the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Articles

141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to the executive to subserve public interest.

Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voter’s speech or expression in case of

election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the

candidate to be selected is a must. Voter’s (little man â€" citizen’s) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his

candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over

before making his choice of electing law-breakers as law-makers.

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are unjustified or beyond its jurisdiction.

However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of this matter, the said directions

are modified as stated below.

The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Article

324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his

nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature:

(1) Whether the candidate is convicted/ acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the pastâ€"if any, whether he is punished with

imprisonment or fine.

(2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with

imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law. If so, the details thereof.

(3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants.

(4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any overdues of any public financial institution or government dues.

(5) The educational qualifications of the candidate.â€​

In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of speech and

expression and as such the voter has every right to know about the criminal antecedent of a candidate to think over before making his choice of

electing law breakers as law makers. The Election Commission was further directed to require from a candidate seeking election to Parliament or a

State Legislature, an affidavit with respect to his criminal antecedent and also about his property.

I have also perused the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Singh @ Umesh Singh Vs. State Election

Commission through the State Election Commissioner & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2016) cited on behalf of the State Election Commission. In the

said case, challenge was made to the order of the Election Commission whereby the petitioner of that case was disqualified from the membership of

the post of Nagar Parishad, Jhumaritilaiya on the ground of non-furnishing of the information in the affidavit filed alongwith nomination form regarding

his conviction in the criminal case. In the said case, it has been held as under:-

“10. It is evident that the Legislature while framing the Act of 2011 has consciously introduced the provision of section 543 which

requires furnishing of certain essential information by the candidate. It is immaterial whether release of the petitioner under the provisions

of Probation of Offenders Act and rescue from disqualification under section 12 of the said Act, is going to affect the issue required to be

decided in the instant matter. Petitioner was definitely under an obligation of law, as per the mandate declared by the Apex Court as also

the statutory mandate under the Act, 2011 to disclose vital information relating to his conviction.â€​

I am in full agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned Single Bench. The petitioner was supposed to correctly fill up the relevant

columns in affidavit while submitting his nomination form giving details of the said criminal case. By not doing so, the petitioner has in fact committed

“corrupt practices†in terms with the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred herein above. Thus in my considered view, the

respondent no.2 has not committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 25.02.2016 declaring the petitioner disqualified from holding his

post as Ward Councilor of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and the same is completely justified and legal.

The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. No. 2134 of 2018 also stands disposed of.