A writ of quo-warranto is maintainable to challenge the continued tenure of a Pramukh who incurred disqualification under electoral law, necessitating a fresh election.

JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Melhotra and Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Khare assisted by Shri J.P. Singh for respondent no.5, Shri Ten Singh for the State Election Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner by means of this petition has sought a writ of quo- warranto restraining the respondent no.5 from holding the post of Kshettra Panchayat Pramukh, Block Martinganj, District Azamgarh. A direction has also been sought for declaring the said post to be vacant for holding fresh elections to it.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent no.5, resident of village Surhan, contested the election of member of the Block Development Council and was duly elected. He thereafter was also elected as the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat.

4. By a notification dated 22.07.2022, issued under Section 3 of the Municipalities Act , 1916, village Surhan was excluded from the territorial constituency of Kshettra Panchayat, Martinganj and was incorporated in the territorial constituency of Nagar Palika, Martinganj.

5. Since the name of the respondent no.5 existed in the electoral roll of village Surhan, which stood excluded from the territorial constituency falling under the Kshettra Panchayat, the said respondent could not have been permitted to continue as the Pramukh but was wrongly and illegally, so allowed.

6. On 10.02.2023, the respondent no.5 got elected to the Block Development Council from village Aurangabad and was permitted to continue as the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat without any fresh elections having been held. This was after he got his name expunged from the electoral roll of village Surhan and incorporated in the electoral roll of village Aurangabad.

7. It is contended that in view of clause (o) of Section 13 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam , 1961, the respondent no.5 incurred a disqualification as his name did not exist in the electoral roll of the territorial jurisdiction of the Kshettra Panchayat. His name has been included therein after a substantial gap of almost 10 months. Accordingly, the post of Pramukh should have been declared vacant and fresh elections should have been held for the said post.

8. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. , 2003 (3) AWC 2224 , especially paragraphs 12 and 13, thereof and Madan Singh vs. Madhwa Nand Joshi, 2000 (2) AWC 1639.

9. It has also been submitted that the relevant assertions made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition has not been denied in the counter affidavits that have been filed by the respondents. The disqualification, which the respondent no.5 incurred was one provided under clause (o) of Section 13 of the Act. In any case after the notification of 22.07.2022, village Surhan became part of Nagar Panchayat, Martinganj.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 7 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam , 1961 to submit that every Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat is to be elected by the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat from amongst themselves. The respondent no.5 got elected as a member of the Kshettra Panchayat after exclusion of village Surhan therefrom on 10.03.2023. He has been allowed to continue as the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat despite having been rendered ineligible to hold the post after 22.07.2022. He again got elected as a member of the Kshettra Panchayat on 10.02.2023. Therefore, even for being the Block Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat Martinganj, a fresh election was required, which was never held and hence the relief prayed in the writ petition.

11. Shri Ashok Khare appearing for the fifth respondent, referring to Article 243-F (2) read with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, has submitted that the question as to whether a member of a Panchayat is subjected to any disqualificati