The judgment established the principle that a person convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is disqualified from holding the position of Pradhan under the UP. Pranchayat Raj Act, 1947, and that the State Election Commission has jurisdiction to cancel an election based on such disqualification.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Sri P. N. Rai learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22. 9. 2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ) passed by the respondent No. 4. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed directing the respondent not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner as village Pradhan.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding this writ petition are; Petitioner contested the election of gram Pradhan of village Murdhawa, in which he was declared elected on 28th August, 2005. The State Election Commission passed an order dated 22. 9. 2005 holding that the petitioner amrendra Singh could not contest the election of the office of Pradhan because he stood disqualified on account of his conviction dated 13. 6. 1997 passed in Session Trial No. 43 of 1993 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, The Election commission countermanded the election of the petitioner in consequence of which steps for fresh election of the office of Pradhan have been initiated.

( 4 ) SRI Ashwani Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition raised following submissions :

(1) The petitioner is not disqualified within the meaning of Section 5-A of the U. P. Pranchayat raj Act, 1947. The conviction dated 13. 6. 1997 has still not started. The disqualification has not yet started running. The petitioner had not yet undergone the sentence in accordance with the conviction order dated 13. 6. 1997. The execution of conviction dated 13. 6. 1997 is suspended in appeal filed by the petitioner in this Court, which appeal is pending. In alternative the disqualification period shall be counted from 13. 6. 1997 and taking into period of conviction of three years and bar of disqualification of five years shall operate only upto 13. 6. 2005 whereas the petitioner has filed nomination on 6. 8. 2005 hence the disqualification, if any, came to an end. (2) The disqualification of the petitioner on the strength of the conviction shall stand removed in accordance with rules namely the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Computation of Period of Five Years For removal of Disqualification, Fixation of Period of Dues etc. and Settlement of Disputes of disqualification) Rules, 1994. (3) The question of disqualification of the petitioner to contest the election could have been raised only in election petition filed Under Section 12- C of the UP. Pranchayat Raj Act, 1947. The question of disqualification can also be decided in accordance with Section 6-A by the prescribed Authority and it is only the Prescribed Authority who can decide the question of disqualification as per Section 6- A of the U. P. Pranchayat Raj Act, 1947. (4) Article 243- O of the Constitution of India bars the jurisdiction of the courts in the matter of election of Panchayat. (5) After the petitioner having been declared elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha the State election Commission had no jurisdiction to cancel the election of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on three Division Bench judgements of this Court i. e. 1995 A. W. C. 1465 Smt. Ram Kantiv. District Magistrate and Ors. 2000 (4) A. W. C. 2777 shambhu Singhv. State Election Commission. U. P. and Ors. and the judgment dated 7. 8. 2000 passed in writ petition No. 32421 of 2000 Smt. Shyam Sakhi and Ors. v. The State Election commission and Ors.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 contended that the petitioner having been convicted by criminal court for a period of three years is disqualified as per Section 5-A (K) of the U. P. Pranchayat Raj Act, 1947 and he could not have been elected as Pradhan nor could function as Pradhan. The di