UTTAM SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR PANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders passed by the Collector, panna dated 29-1-1986 in an election petition under Rule 43 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj mandi Niyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the Rules ). Accordingly, the election petition has been allowed and the notification by which the present petitioner Uttam singh was declared elected as member of ward No. 4 of Panna Mandi has been set aside and the petitioner in that case, i. e. respondent No. 3 Brijendra Singh, has been declared elected as member of the Panna Mandi from Ward No. 4.

(2.) IT is common ground that the market was established by the State government for regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce under section 4 of die M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter called the adhiniyam ). A market committee known as Panna Krishi Upaj Mandi was established under Section 7 of the said Adhiniyam. The market area was divided into several wards and election was held for the membership of the committee for each ward. The petitioner Uttam Singh as well as respondent No. 3 Brijendra Singh filed nomination forms for membership for Ward No. 4. The nomination papers were published and date of scrutiny was notified. The petitioner raised an objection that respondent No. 3 was disqualified to contest, as he was defaulter and owed a sum of Rs. 2000/- to Sewa sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vaishobha for which a certificate was filed (Annexure-A ). The scrutiny officer rejected the objection and the respondent No. 3 Brijendra Singh was allowed to contest. The petitioner was elected as member of the said committee from Ward No. 4 whereas respondent No. 3 was defeated. The respondent No. 3 filed an election petition under Rule 43, alleging inter alia that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and consequently was not eligible to contest in view of Rule 7 (x) of the Rules. The Collector in his orders dated 29-1-1986 (Annexure-B) held that the offence committed involved 'moral turpitude' and accordingly passed the impugned orders referred earlier. It was further held that the respondent (present petitioner) has not established clearly that the petitioner (respondent No. 3 in this petition) was wilful defaulter at the time of filing of the nomination papers and therefore, negatived that contention.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his conviction under Section 324, Indian Penal code is not covered under Section 7 (x) of the Rules, as the said offence did not involve 'moral turpitude1 and therefore, the election petition against him was liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, respondent No: 3 was disqualified, being a defaulter, and therefore, he was incompetent to contest for the membership and had no locus standi to file the election petition and also could not have been declared elected on the election petition of the petitioner being held invalid.