HANS RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act amount to a conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude is the question that arises in this petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order of respondent No. 2. (Competent Authority under the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules 1959) against its order dated 30.6.1973 by which the election of the petitioner was set aside.

(2.) The election of 'Pradhan' of village Kondli Gram was announced and Oct. 30 and 31, 1972 were fixed for filing of the nomination paper. On the date of scrutiny i.e. 2.11.1972 respondent No. 3 contesting candidate raised an objection before the Returning Officer that the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and as such was ineligible to stand for election under the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act. This objection was, however, over-ruled by the Returning Officer. The petitioner contested the election and was successful. Respondent No. 3, challenged his election under Rule 57 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules) and respondent No. 2 by the impugned order held that the acceptance of the nomination paper was wrong and has materially effected the result of the election and after setting aside the election of the petitioner has declared a casual vacancy. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) Sec. 153(e) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 provides that no person shall be entitled to be or remain a member of the Gaon Panchayat, if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or ordered to give security for good behaviour ....... Rule 57(1)(b) of the Rules provides that the election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha or as Member of Gaon Panchayat or as Panch of a Circle Panchayat shall not be called in question except by election petition and amongst others on one of the grounds namely that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination. It is not disputed that if the finding of respondent No. 2 is correct that the nomination of the petitioner was improperly accepted then the result of the election was materially affected because the petitioner was the returned candidate and as he would then not be entitled to be or remain a member of the Gaon Panchayat, his election has to be set aside.