Honble JHA, CJ.–A significant question of law - whether the dispute relating to any pre-election disqualification can be adjudicated only in an election petition before the District Judge under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 or it can also be adjudicated by the authority under rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 read with Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - is involved in these three special appeals. The point being common the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2). The representative facts may be noticed from D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.236/2006 which was argued as the leading case.

(3). The appellant filed writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9758/2005, for quashing the enquiry initiated by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) , Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu. She was informed that the preliminary enquiry held by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu disclosed that third child was born to the appellant after 27.11.1995; if she so desired, she could appear for personal hearing on the date fixed viz 16.12.1995, and submit her show-cause and produce evidence failing which the enquiry would be concluded ex-parte. It is relevant to mention here that having more than two children - born after 27.11.1995 - is a disqualification for election as panch or member of the Panchayati Raj Institution under Section 19 (l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(4). The election in question was held in the month of January 2005. The appellant contested the election and was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bheemsar within Panchayat Samiti Jhunjhunu. According to the respondents, by reason of the birth of the third child after 27.11.2005 she was disqualified from contesting the election and she was therefore not entitled to continue in office. Challenging the authority of the CEO to make any enquiry in respect of pre-election disqualification the appellant filed the writ petition. She also prayed for stay of enquiry proceedings. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that there was conflict of opinion on the point and some petitions had been referred to larger Bench to resolve the dispute. The writ petition of the appellant was admitted to hearing on 27.2.2006. By a separate order on the same day the learned Single Judge declined to stay the enquiry observing that the appellant can challenge the findings of the enquiry in revision under Section 97 of the Act. Challenging the said order dated 27.2.2006 the appellant has come to Division Bench in this appeal contending inter alia that in similar cases enquiry has been stayed by this Court.

(5). On 18.5.2006 the Division Bench observed that the case involves questions of law which need to be decided and considering that office of Sarpanch has a fixed term, the appeal may be finally decided at the stage of admission itself lest the exercise may become infructuous. Later, by order dated 25.7.2006 after a detailed hearing, the Division Bench referred the case to larger Bench so that conflict between different judgments, if any, may be resolved and an authoritative pronouncement is made on the point. That is how the case came before this Bench.

(6). D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) nos.276/2006 and 289/2006 are converse cases at the instance of the complainant and the State, respectively, challenging the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.9558/2005 staying the order of the State Government dated 28.11.2005 by which the writ petitioner/respondent, Dinesh Chand, was removed from the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Baseri on receipt of the enquiry report of CEO Zila Parishad, Dholpur holding that he was disqualified for election as he had more than two children after 27.11.2005.

(7). The aforesaid order was p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document