1. - A writ of quo warranto issued by the Single Judge vide his order dated 19.11.2007 which has resulted in displacing the present appellant from the membership and Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Buhana is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. The present appellant filed his nomination paper for election to the membership of Ward No. 25, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana on 13.01.2005. In his declaration, he declared that no Court has ever taken cognizance against him in a criminal case and that no criminal case was pending against him. His nomination paper was accepted by the Returning Officer. The voting took place on 29.01.2005 and after counting of votes, on 08.02.2005, the appellant was declared as a member of ward No. 25, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana. Having been elected as a member of Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, he also contested the election of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti and he was declared elected.

3. Dharam Singh the present respondent No. 2 who was an unsuccessful candidate from Ward No. 25, after about five months, made an application to the State Government that for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, a first information report was registered against Harpal Singh the present appellant on 20.10.1995 with Police Station Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu and, thus, he was disqualified to contest such election in view of Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. That pursuant to the said first information report (407/95), the challan was filed against the present appellant on 07.04.1997 and the said Court took cognizance against the appellant for the aforementioned offences on 28.06.1997 and the charges were framed on 01.10.1999. Bereft of unnecessary details in respect of the proceedings having been taken by the State Government on the said application, suffice it to say, that before the Single Judge, the only aspect that was highlighted by the present respondent No. 2 in support of the writ petition was that the present appellant could not have been elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti being disqualified and, therefore, he has no authority to hold the office of a Member, Panchayat Samiti and that of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana.

4. The Single Judge considered the matter at quite some length and by over-ruling the various objections raised by the present appellant, the writ of quo warranto. In this connection, inter-alia, the Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan and Anr., (1999) 2 SCR 857 : AIR 1999 SC 1723 .

5. Mr. R.N. Mathur, the Counsel for the appellant, assailing the judgment of the Single Judge, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Surinder Singh Banolta, (2006) 12 S.C.C. 484. He vehemently contended that in the light of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 243-F and 243-O and Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the appellant could only have been unseated on the ground of pre-election disqualification save and except by way of a election petition. He would contend that the original writ petitioner (respondent No.2 herein) was a defeated candidate and being personally interested in the matter, could not have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by seeking the writ of quo warranto. Mr. R.N. Mathur, in this connection, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Shrivastava and Ors. v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1703 : (1977) 2 SC 494 .

6. We shall first refer to the two decisions cited by Mr. R.N. Mathur. In the case of K.K. Shrivastava, the subject matter before the Supreme Court related to the validity of election to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh of twenty returned candidates. The Supreme Court considered the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, regulating the disputes regarding election. Rule 31(4) of the Election Rules provided that