Honble YADAV, J.–The present writ petition is posted today for disposal of an application moved for impleadment of Ram Singh Yadav in the array of respondents.

(2). The brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the election of Gram Panchayat in State of Rajasthan were held in January-February, 2000 and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Balawas, Panchayat Simiti Bansoor District- Alwar.

(3). Indisputably, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Balawas Panchayat Simiti, Bansoor District Alwar and a certificate was issued to him by the Returning Officer. It is further not disputed before me that after declaration of result, an election petition has been filed against the petitioner before Election Tribunal under Sec. 43 of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of Rules framed thereunder.

(4). The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents are not authorised to make an enquiry against him with regard to his disqualification under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which has close nexus with acceptance of his nomination paper for which an election petition is sub judice before Election Tribunal. The inquiry sought to be made against him by respondents can be agitated before the Election Tribunal under Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules framed thereunder.

(5). Thus the grievance of the petitioner before the court is that during the pendency of the election petition before the Election Tribunal, respondents have no authority to make an enquiry regarding his disqualification under sub Sec. (1) of Section 19 of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

(6). I have heard learned counsel for the complainant Shri Praveen Balwada in support of the impleadment application at length. I have also heard the learned Additional Advocate General Shri M. Rafiq appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Mukesh Agarwal holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Soni learned counsel for the petitioner.

(7). In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove instead of disposing of impleadment application, I propose to decide the petition finally on merits with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(8). I am of the view that in the light of Article 243 O (b) of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. For ready reference relevant provisions of aforesaid Article are reproduced herein below:

``243 O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-

(a) ...............................................

(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.

(9). It goes without saying that State Legislature has enacted Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and State Government has framed Rules thereunder providing mechanism to question the validity of declaration of result by Returning Officer of Panchayat Elections. It is further true that any person aggrieved against declaration of result can file an election petition before Election Tribunal under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is further true that under Article 243 O (b) of the Constitution no election to Panchayat can be called in question except by an election petition. Since disqualification sought to be inquired by respondents against the petitioner after declaration of his result is closely connected with acceptance of his nomination, hence, it can be agitated only before Election Tribunal. No other authority or court is empowered to question declaration of result of the petitioner except Election Tribunal under Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder.

(10). What has been discussed hereinabove, no useful purpose would be served to allow the impleadment ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document