POONAM Vs. DULE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner suffered a conviction under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She, however, failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor. Her election was challenged by the first respondent, and the trial Court unseated her from the post of Councillor holding her to be disqualified under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The revision application preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed, she has preferred the present Special Leave Petition.

(2.) In the elections held for the post of Councillor at Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon, the petitioner came to be elected from Ward No.5 securing the highest number of votes. Notification to that effect dtd. 4/10/2022 came to be issued. The first respondent filed an election petition under Sec. 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter, "the Act of 1961") read with The Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter "the Rules of 1994") and sought a declaration that the petitioner be held disqualified for holding the post of Councillor and that her seat be declared as vacant. In the election petition, it was pleaded by the first respondent that on 7/8/2018, the petitioner had been convicted in proceedings filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, "the Act of 1881"). She had been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also ordered to pay compensation. The fact of her conviction, however, had not been disclosed by the petitioner in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form as required by Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1994. Though other grounds of challenge were also raised, same are not relevant for the present purpose. It was thus prayed that the petitioner be declared disqualified from holding the post of Councillor.

(3.) The petitioner filed her reply and opposed the election petition by raising a plea that the order of conviction dtd. 7/8/2018 was no longer in existence as the same had set aside in appeal. She stated that the election petition was liable to be dismissed as she had not incurred any disqualification as mentioned in Sec. 35 of the Act of 1961.