A writ of quo-warranto can be issued to challenge the election of a public office holder who conceals disqualifying information, as such concealment violates statutory provisions.

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of writ of quo-warranto challenging the very election of present respondent No.6 as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Manpur, Tehsil Joura, District Morena, on account of respondent no.6 incurring disqualifications to hold the office of the Sarpanch as prescribed under Section 36(1) (a)(ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam , 1993, as while contesting the election he had falsely stated that no case was pending against him, nor he had been convicted in any case, whereas, a criminal case bearing number 480/2008 was registered against respondent number 6 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joura, which was decided on 07.08.2015.

2. Short facts leading to the controversy are that in the year, 2022 an election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Manpur, Tehsil Joura, District Morena took place, in which respondent no.6 contested the election, however, while submitting his form he did not disclose the fact that a criminal case being registered against him, nor he had been convicted in any case, whereas, a criminal case bearing number 480/2008 was tried against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joura, which was decided on 07.08.2015, wherein he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 02 years of incarceration.

3. Against the said judgment of conviction a Criminal Appeal No.194/2015 was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2023. Thereafter, Respondent number 6 had filed a Revision Petition bearing number 1504/2023 before this Court against the order of the Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2023. In the midst, an application dated 05.06.2023 was submitted by the petitioner to the Respondents mentioning that respondent No.6 is disqualified for the post of Sarpanch, as he has concealed this fact in his affidavit. However, no order or action has been taken on the application submitted by the Petitioner till date. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 6, while absconding, continued to hold the position of Sarpanch and thus, is causing financial losses.

4. Since the respondent no.6 was convicted as aforesaid under the provisions of Section 36(1)(a)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 he was disqualified to be appointed/elected for the post of Sarpanch which is a public post/office and his nomination was liable to be rejected on the ground of said disqualification. This fact was suppressed while filling up the nomination form, declaration form as well as in the affidavit and such concealment/suppression had resulted in an illegal result as he was disqualified and had no right to contest the elections and hold the post.

5. Alleging the said election/appointment of respondent no.6 on the post of Sarpanch in violation of statutory provisions as he had no right to contest the election and to be elected as a Sarpanch, his very appointment/election is challenged under the present writ petition.

ARGUMENTS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of Suresh Choudhary vs Atarlal Verma And Ors reported in 2006 (3) MPLJ 506 , had argued before this Court that a writ of quo- warranto can be issued to declare a Member of Panchayat disqualified to continue in the post to which he had been elected by suppressing the factum of disqualification as he had played fraud on the statute and, therefore, is not entitled to hold the office as he was not eligible to contest the elections and the present writ petition would be maintainable and as such a person cannot be allowed to participate in the proceedings of Panchayat as a Member and his election has to be declared as illegal, ergo, a writ of quo-warranto would be maintainable and relief can be granted.

7. Further while placing reliance in the matter of Virendra Tyagi v. State of M.P and Ors . reported in 2011(1) MPLJ 245 , it is argued that a