SULTAN SINGH DHAKAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of writ of quo-warranto challenging the very election of present respondent no.6 as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semai, Tehsil Kailaras, District Morena on account of respondent no.6 incurring disqualifications to hold the office of the Sarpanch as prescribed under Sec. 36(1) (a)(ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, as while contesting the election he had suppressed the fact of his conviction and sentence under Sec. 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC vide Sessions Trial No.307/2014 for a period of two years and one year respectively and, thus, is illegally holding the office of Sarpanch which is a public office.

(2.) Short facts leading to the controversy are that in the year, 2022 an election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semai took place in which respondent no.6 contested the election, however, while submitting his form he did not disclose the fact that he was convicted with other co-accused persons under Sec. 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC for two years RI and one year RI respectively with fine of Rs.2000.00 and 500/- and in lieu of default he was further directed to under go three months' RI vide Sessions Trial No.307/2014 dtd. 28/2/2022. Against the said judgment of conviction a Criminal Appeal No.2362/2022 was preferred by respondent no.6 along with other co-accused persons in which vide order dtd. 15/3/2022, this Court had suspended remaining jail sentence and had released him on bail, but the effect and operation of the judgment has not been stayed till this day and the conviction still subsists.

(3.) Since the respondent no.6 was convicted as aforesaid under the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(a)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 he was disqualified to be appointed/elected for the post of Sarpanch which is a public post/office and his nomination was liable to be rejected on the ground of said disqualification. This fact was suppressed while filling up the nomination form, declaration form as well as in the affidavit and such concealment/suppression had resulted in an illegal result as he was disqualified and had no right to contest the elections and hold the post.