Allahabad High Court
Arvind vs State Election Commisioner State ... on 30 November, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11035 of 2015
Petitioner :- Arvind
Respondent :- State Election Commisioner State Of U.P & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Pandey,Rama Kant Giri
Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
This petition raises a question relating to the authority of the Returning Officer to accept the nomination paper of the respondent no.5 on the ground that firstly the respondent no.5 did not give the correct disclosure about his having been convicted in a criminal case where he has been punished for having committed an offence under Section 304 I.P.C, secondly, on account of such a punishment the respondent no.5 stands disqualified inherently as the conviction clearly involves moral turpitude.
The petitioner moved a representation even before the acceptance of the nomination papers on which inquiries were called upon to be held and there are communications to that effect which indicates that the respondent no.5 is on bail in an appeal before the High Court.
This is being disputed by the learned counsel for the Election Commission on the ground that this objection appears to have been raised after the acceptance of the nomination papers.
Whatever be the position, the fact remains that the nomination papers of respondent no.5 have not been rejected and according to the petitioner, though being a disqualified person he is being allowed to contest the elections which violates the provisions of Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with relevant rules that have been framed in relation to the election of the Office of Gram Pradhan.
We have considered the submissions raised.
The elections have already been held on 28.11.2015 but the results have not been declared.
The writ petition ought to have been filed after elections and, therefore, at this stage it will not be appropriate for us to entertain the writ petition more so, when the result of the elections are likely to be declared very shortly.
The question of disqualification to be raised directly in a writ petition has been dealt with by the Apex Court in several cases and has been considered in different decisions of this Court as well. This is coupled with the issue relating to a disqualification on account of the conviction of a returned candidate in an offence involving moral turpitude. The issue was dealt with in the case of Dhanai Vs State of U.P, 2010 (109) RD 4324 and in the case of Meena Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (111) RD 467 and has also been reflected upon by a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 2005 Patna Pg.109 in the case of Bhageran Rai and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and Ors.
These decisions also take notice of the Supreme Court decisions in this regard where indications have been given for entertaining a writ petition of quo-warranto against returned candidates after the election results are declared.
In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, at this stage, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the remedy as and when the occasion arises after the result of elections are declared.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2015/Shahnaz
