AMRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21. 10. 200j dismissing the writ petition No. 63643 of 2005, the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') has filed this intra Court appeal under Chapter VII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Session Trial No. 43 of 1993 vide judgment dated 13lh August, 1997 passed by Special Judge, Sonbhadra and was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 5. 000 and in default of payment of fine, further six months' rigorous imprisonment. He filed an appeal No. 1272 of 1997 which was admitted on 28th July, 1997 and bail was granted. THE Appellate Court passed the following order: "admit. Let the appellant Amrendra Singh Kurrhi s/o latetara Chandra Singh be released on bail in ST. No. 43 of 1993 under Section 20 of N. D. P. S. Actor his furnishing two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount to th satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra. "

(3.) ON the contrary, learned Counsel appearing for State Election Commission submits that a person, who is disqualified to hold an office can neither be declared nor be allowed to continue to hold the elected office and, therefore, not only, election of the person concerned, but even thereafter, the State Election Commission has a statutory and Constitutional obligation to see that no person, who is disqualified to hold an office should continue therein. In the case in hand, the petitioner was admittedly convicted and hence was disqualified under law to be elected as Gram-Pradhan under the provisions of 1947 Act and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Hence, the State Election Commission rightly passed the order countermanding election and in any case, since the petitioner was a person who was disqualified to hold a public office, the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and there is no error in the decision of Hon'ble Single Judge warranting any interference in this appeal.