The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, mere taking of cognizance does not render a candidate disqualified, and charges must be framed after taking cognizance for disqualification.

ORDER :- In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and decree dated 3-1-2008 (Annex. 6) passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 3, Jodhpur, whereby, the Tribunal has set aside the election of petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Anwana and declared the post of Sarpanch as vacant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an election petition was filed by the respondent-applicant challenging the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Anwana under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. The petitioner filed his nomination form as per programme of election on 30-1-2005. Thereby, scrutiny was made by the respondent-Returning Officer. Along with the nomination form, all the candidates were required to submit necessary details with regard to pendency of criminal case or conviction made against them. The candidates were also required to give declaration with regard to cognizance taken against them in any criminal case. Respondent Khinya Ram filed his nomination form and submitted all information and declaration including declaration to the effect that criminal case is pending against him under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B, IPC. In the declaration it is nowhere mentioned by the respondent-Khinya Ram-election petitioner that though cognizance has been taken against him for the abovementioned offences but the charges are not framed.

3. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer after taking into consideration the declaration given by the respondent No. 2 Khinya Ram, arrived at the conclusion that since cognizance has been taken against him on 5-9-2000 and he has not disclosed as to what further proceedings were held in the matter, therefore, on the basis of declaration given by him and objection taken by the petitioner, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination form of respondent No. 2 by making endorsement that criminal case is pending against Khinya Ram, wherein, charges have been framed. The said position was not controverted by the respondent-election petitioner before the Returning Officer, therefore, in view of the information supplied by the respondent No. 2, the Returning Officer was left with no option but to reject the nomination form of respondent No. 2. As per the petitioner, the intention in prescribing such declaration is to ascertain whether any criminal case is pending and cognizance has been taken against a candidate, who has submitted his nomination form because there is disqualification prescribed under Section 19(gg) of the Act of 1994, whereby, a person is disqualified against whom cognizance has been taken by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and against whom charges have been framed.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that upon reading of declaration form it is clearly established that the legislative intention that word "occurring" in Section 19(gg) "has taken cognizance of the offence and framed the charged against him" should be read as "has taken cognizance of the offence or framed the charges against him". If the word "and" occurring in Section 19(gg) is not read as "or" then the entire provision shall be rendered redundant. According to the petitioner, the declaration form does not prescribed any column with regard to framing of charge. It speaks of merely "taking of cognizance" and charges can be framed only after taking cognizance, therefore, word "cognizance" occurring in Section 19(gg) shall be rendered redundant if the word "or" is not read in place of "and" between the words cognizance and framing of charge.

5. The Returning Officer after scrutinising the nomination forms and after considering the whole matter in four corners of law and guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan came to the conclusion that respondent-applicant is disqualified to contest the election and