Misra, J... 1. The petitioner, a resident of Village Shahpura Bhitoni, District Jabalpur, a social worker and a voter of Shahpura Panchayat as a pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition for debarring the respondent No.9, Gulab Singh Gond, from continuing on the post of President, Janpad Panchayat, Shahpura as he is not entitled to continue on the said post because he has incurred the disqualification as envisaged under section 36(1)(a)(ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity "the Act").

2. At the very outset we are obliged to state that colossal objections were raised by Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the ninth respondent about the locus standi of the petitioner and immense emphasis was put on the language employed under section 36 requiring this Court to place an interpretation on the said language to highlight that the structure which is sought to be built by the petitioner relating to the disqualification of the said respondent is absolutely misconceived being shorn of any infrastructure or foundation and further the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to wreak personal vengeance in the guise of filing a public interest litigation putting forth an adroit stand that he is a public spirited person.

3. Be it noted, when the hearing commenced the learned counsel for the respondent propounded with immense astuteness that the said respondent No.9 cannot be put into the category of a disqualified person under the aforesaid provision and such a stand was taken on the base that purposive interpretation has to be given to the term 'release', used in the said provision, but, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice that the stand and the proponement canvassed on behalf of respondent No.9 have to be thrown overboard because he has not stated the real facts before this Court and deliberate suppression is writ large in the asseverations made in Paragraph 9 wherein it has been mentioned with imprudence that the Criminal Appeal No.2573/07 preferred by the said respondent is still pending adjudication before this Court. The said affidavit has been filed on 23.10.2007.

4. To appreciate the lis in question it is apposite to note certain dates. Respondent No.9 filled up nomination papers for member of Janpad Panchayat, Shahpura on 26.12.2004 and the election thereof was held in January, 2005. Thereafter, the said respondent was elected as the President of Janpad Panchayat, Shahpura in the year 2005.

5. The question that emerges for consideration is whether the said respondent is disqualified or not as per the said provision. In this context we may refer with profit to section 36(1)(a), which reads as under:

"36. (l)(a) No person shall be eligible to be an office bearer of Panchayat who -- (a) has, either before or after the commencement of this Act, been convicted :

(i) of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 or under any law in connection with the use, consumption or sale of narcotics or any law corresponding thereto in force in any part of the State, unless a period of five years or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular case has elapsed since his conviction; or

(ii) of any other offence and had been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, unless a period of five years or such less period as the State Government may allow in any particular case has elapsed since his release...."

6. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to section 36(l)(ii) to buttress the submission that a person shall not be eligible to be an office bearer if he is convicted for any offence and has been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months unless a period of five years or such less period as the State Government may allow in any particular case since his release.

7. The respondent, as is beyond dispute, was convicted u