BHANUBHAI M RAVAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION involved in the petition and the statement of skeleton facts giving rise to the question. A question of quite some importance is raised in this petition by the petitioner who is a voter in the relevant constituency. Before getting elected, in effect, to the position of a member of the Pradesh Council of the Union Territory of Diu and Daman, respondent No. 4 was prosecuted and was ultimately charged with various offences, including the offence of murder. On the very date on which he became a member of the Council, he was also appointed by the Administrator of Diu and Daman as the Councillor, which is an equivalent of a Minister in the other States. In spite of this position, the prosecution which was pending against him resulted in an order against him. He was convicted by the Sessions Court of various offences, including the offence of murder. No about he has filed an appeal against that order of conviction and the appeal is pending hearing. But the fact remains that his conviction continues. It is neither suspended nor made imperative by any order of any Court as such. No doubt respondent No. 4 is released on bail; but the convictions remains unaffected by any order of the Court as such. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a voter in the relevant constituency, for an appropriate order so that his continuation as a Councillor as also as a Member of the Council will be terminated. We have to consider as to what effect the conviction has upon the right of respondent No. 4 to continue as a Member of the Council and as the Councillor.

(2.) RELEVANT facts stated in chronological order. The relevant facts may be stated, very briefly, as follows :---On 30-06-1983 an incident took place in which two person happened to be murdered. The allegation is that it was a case of dacoity. Present respondent No. 4, was, allegedly, involved in that incident and he was prosecuted alongwith 42 others and was charged of various offences, including the offence of murder. In 1984 in spite of the pendency of the prosecution against him. Respondent No. 4 was successful in getting himself elected to the Goa Assembly from the Diu Constituency. On 29-05-87 Daman and Diu (Administration) Regulation, 1987 came into force. As a result of the said regulation, the new State of Goa with a Legislative Assembly of its own, came into existence and the remaining two territories viz. , and Diu and Daman continued to be the Union Territories without Legislative Assemblies. It may be stated at this stage itself that even though Diu and Daman Continued to be the Union Territories, pure and simple, without a legislative Assembly as such, they have a Pradesh Council and from out of the Pradesh Council a few of its members are appointed as the Councillors which is, for all practical purposes, a position equivalent to that of a Minister of a State with a legislative assembly. This position has been brought about by "daman and Diu (Administration) Regulation 1987. The subsequent "goa, Diu and Daman Reorganisation Act, which came into force on 9-7-1987 has not brought about any charge in this position. On 3-8-87 Respondent No. 4, who was till then a member of the Goal Legislative Assembly, became a Member of the Diu and Daman Pradesh Council and on the very day he was also appointed by the Administrator as a Councillor (which is a post practically equivalent to that of a Minister ). On 9-5-88 Respondent No. 4 was convicted by Sessions Court inter alia of the offence of murder. On 10-5-88 Appeal No. 425 of 1988 was filed by him in this Court and bail was obtained by him. The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a voter in respondent No. 4s constituency, on 27-10-88. Petitioners plea.

(3.) THE petitioners plea is that the conviction of respondent No. 4 (hereinafter, the respondent) continues unaffected and that the bill obtained by him from this Court does not affect the factual position that his conviction continued. Hence, according to the petitioner, the provisions of Clause 4 of the Daman and Diu (Administration) Regulation 1987 (hereinafter, the regulation) inexorably, comes into force and by virtue of said Clause 4 of the said regulation, read with section 11 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats Regulation 1962 (hereinafter, the Panchayat Regulation) the respondent has incurred disqualification to continue as member of the Pradesh Council and consequently also as a Councillor. Relevant legal position set out or paraphrased. Clause 4 of the Regulation runs as follows :