JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, alongwith Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel; and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General submits as under:

(i) The writ petition was filed by the petitioners concealing material facts of the case with respect to FIR being Case Crime No. 222/2021, dated 8.6.2021, under section 364, I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi, District - Firozabad, against petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Case Crime No. 68/2021, dated 7.4.2021, under sections 147, 188, 341, 353, 171E, 171H, I.P.C. read with section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 against the petitioner No. 4 and rejection of his anticipatory Bail Application No. 1802 of 2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Firozabad, vide order dated 30.6.2021, rejection of anticipatory bail application No. 292 of 292 of 2021 arising out of case crime No. 222 of 2021, under section 364, I.P.C. by the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Court No. 2, Firozabad, vide order dated 2.7.2021 and Case Crime No. 73/2021, under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 307, I.P.C., P.S. Basai, Mohamadpur, District - Firozabad (FIR dated 9.5.2021) against the petitioner No. 6.

(ii) Since against the petitioners F.I.Rs. were registered, therefore, the petitioners even though elected members of Zila Panchayat; have no right to vote in the election of President, Zila Panchayat of Firozabad, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Election Commissioner and others v. Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) and others, (2013) 7 SCC 507 (paras 6 and 7). inasmuch as persons in lawful custody have no right to vote and they shall not be deemed to be electors.

(iii) The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India which provides that no election of 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. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boddula Krishnaiah Aiyar and another v. State Election Commissioner, A.P. and others: (1996) 3 SCC 416 (para 7, 8, 9, and 11). Since the facts regarding criminal cases as stated above have been concealed by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be said to have approached the Court with clean hands which shall dis-entitle them to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(iv) The effect of the order dated 2.7.2021, passed by this Court is that the petitioners' arrest have been stayed.

3. Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, opposed the Review Application and submits as under:

(i) A review application can be entertained only if the order sought to be reviewed suffers from patent error of law, glaring omission of facts and apparent mistake which neither exists nor has been alleged in the review application nor has been argued. Therefore, the review application itself is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi AIR 1985 SC 674.

(ii) The submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate Genera's and the allegations made in the Review Application are false inasmuch as the petitioners have disclosed in paragraphs 13 and 14 about the Case Crime No. 73 of 2021, under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 307, I.P.C., P.S. - Basai, Mohamadpur, District - Firozabad and Case Crime No. 68/2021, dated 7.4.2021, under section 147, 188, 341, 353, 171E, 171H, I.P.C. read with section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendme