SHIV SINGH RAWATÏ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a resident of village Shahpura Bhitoni, District jabalpur, a social worker and a voter of Shahpura Panchayat as a pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition for debarring the respondent no. 9, Gulab Singh Gond, from continuing on the post of President, janpad Panchayat, Shahpura as he is not entitled to continue on the said post because he has incurred the disqualification as envisaged under section 36 (1) (a) (ii) of the M. P. Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj adhiniyam, 1993, (for brevity 'the Act' ).

(2.) AT the very outset we are obliged to state that colossal objections were raised by Mr. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing for the ninth respondent about the locus standi of the petitioner and immense emphasis was put on the language employed under section 36 requiring this court to place an interpretation on the said language to highlight that the structure which is sought to be built by the petitioner relating to the disqualification of the said respondent is absolutely misconceived being shorn of any infrastructure or foundation and further the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court to wreak personal vengenence in the guise of filing a public interest litigation putting forth an adroit stand that he is a public spirited person.

(3.) BE it noted, when the hearing commenced the learned counsel for the respondent propounded with immense astuteness that the said respondent no. 9 cannot be put into the category of a disqualified person under the aforesaid provision and such a stand was taken on the base that purposive interpretation has to be given to the term 'release', used in the said provision, but, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice that the stand and the proponement canvassed on behalf of respondent no. 9 have to be thrown overboard because he has not stated the real facts before this court and deliberate suppression is writ large in the asseverations made in paragraph 9 wherein it has been mentioned with imprudence that the Criminal Appeal no. 2573/07 preferred by the said respondent is still pending adjudication before this court. The said affidavit has been filed on 23. 10. 07.