SAPANDEEP MAHTO Vs. RAJKISHAN MAHTO RATANLAL MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been preferred challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koria in Misc. Civil Case No.5/2020 (Rajkishan Vs. Sapandeep Mahto @ Sapan and Others) whereby petition of respondent No.1 challenging the election of the petitioner as returned candidate as Ward Councillor of Manendragarh Municipality on the ground of non-disclosure of offences in his nomination paper, so he played the corrupt practice has been allowed and the result declaring the petitioner herein as Councillor is held to be void.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has succeeded in the election after defeating the respondent No.1 for Ward No.3, Municipal Council, Manendragarh, which was conducted on 21/12/2019 and result was declared on 24/12/2019. Thereafter the respondent No.1 challenged the election of the present petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to disclose criminal antecedents, as required under Form-3A, according to Rule 25-A of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994, (henceforth 'the Rules, 1994') as amended on 8/11/2019, vide Notification No.F-1-5/2014/18. He would further submit that without any evidence being produced by the respondent No.1, the Court below has wrongly passed the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Court below has wrongly held that the applicant is not eligible to participate in the election itself. There is no such mandatory provisions requiring disclosure of acquittal cases. He would further submit that Rule 28 of the Rules, 1994 does not refer to consequences of Rule 25-A, so nondisclosure of offences as required under Rule 25-A is not substantial in view of disqualification prescribed under Sec. 35 of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961 and only for offences enumerated under Sec. 35-(h), (hh) and (hhh), no other offence has been mentioned and the respondent No.1 has no such case that the petitioner has been found in such category, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.