RAMADIN SHAKYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Manish Goyal at length. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief of quo warranto removing respondent No. 4 from the office of Pradhan of Village Panchayat. Barkhera, Tehsil -Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad on the ground inter alia that respondent No. 4 was convicted in the year 1980 and as such, he was not eligible to contest the office of Pradhan. Since the respondent No. 4 was disqualified to contest the office of Pradhan, therefore, he is not entitled to hold the office of Pradhan and by issuing a writ of quo warrnato he deserves to be non -seated.

(3.) WHEN the learned Counsel for the petitioner was confronted with mandatory provisions enshrined under Article 243 -0 of the Constitution, he submitted that the mandatory provisions enshrined in the aforesaid Article speak about filing of an election petition but even if no election petition is filed, the eligibility of a person holding office of Pradhan can be questioned by way of filing a writ petition seeking relief of quo warranto. The aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reasons given hereinbelow.