The judgment established that failure to disclose criminal antecedents and pending appeal by a candidate constitutes corrupt practice, justifying cancellation of candidature.

ORDER

Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (the respondent No. 4) in Election Petition No. 08/2016 [W.P.(C) No. 5990 of 2016] and Election Petition No. 09/2016 [W.P.(C) No. 5993 of 2016] whereby the election result of the petitioner as a Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, District Godda, Jharkhand issued in Prapatra-22 (mentioned as Prapatra-21 in the impugned orders) has been cancelled and the Block Development Officer, Godda has been directed to take appropriate action under Section 125(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1951'').

2. The factual background of both the writ petitions are almost the same, as in both the writ petitions the respondent No. 6 has filed separate election petitions under Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 2001''], however, for the sake of convenience, the fact of W.P.C No. 5990 of 2016 is being taken into consideration for deciding the present writ petitions.

3. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the State Election Commission, Jharkhand issued the notification for Panchayat Election on 22.10.2015 under the provisions of the Act, 2001 and the petitioner filed his nomination paper on 27.10.2015 for contesting the election of Mukhia from Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, Block-Godda, District-Godda for which the voting was held on 21.11.2015 and the result was declared on 13.12.2015. The petitioner was elected as a Mukhia of the said Gram Panchayat and thereafter a certificate was issued in Prapatra-22 by the Returning Officer, Godda. After declaration of the result, the respondent No. 6, namely, Shakil Ahmad of the same village who also contested the election and stood second in the election, filed an election petition being E.P No. 08/2016 in the Court of the respondent No. 4 on 04.01.2016 which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2016 whereby the election result of the petitioner issued in Prapatra-22 was cancelled and the Block Development Officer, Godda was directed to take appropriate action under Section 125 (a) of the Act, 1951.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition was not filed within 30 days from the date of the notification of the election and therefore the order of the respondent No. 4 is beyond jurisdiction. The respondent No. 4 was not competent to decide the election petition under Section 151(1) in view of specific bar under Section 151(2) of the Act, 2001 which specifically provides that the election petition shall not be entertained, unless it is filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. The election of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, District Godda, Jharkhand was notified on 22.10.2015, however, the election petition was filed on 04.01.2016. The learned Court below also misunderstood the settled principle of law provided in Section 19(1) of the Act, 2001 which clearly stipulates that if a person is convicted and a period of five years has lapsed since the date of conviction, he is eligible to contest the Panchayat election. The petitioner was convicted on 05.11.2009 in T.R. Case No. 889 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 323/348/380/34 IPC and from the date of conviction, 5 years period had already lapsed on 05.11.2014 and thereafter the petitioner was eligible for contesting the Panchayat election. The petitioner also preferred an appeal against his conviction and the same was clearly mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper for the Panchayat election to which no objection was raised by the respondent No. 6. Though an appeal was pending before the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Godda at the time of passing the impugned order, however, during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the learne