KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER, KARNAL DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (Kuldeep Kumar) has filed the instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dtd. 26/7/2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Panipat (in short 'Deputy Commissioner'), whereby petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch of village Kalkha, District Karnal.

(2.) Briefly, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of village Kalkha, District Karnal, in the panchayat elections, held in the year 2022.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned orders dtd. 26/7/2024 (Annexure P-4) and 7/11/2024 (Annexure P-8) are perverse and thus liable to be set aside. It is submitted that a Sarpanch can be suspended by the Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 51 of 1994 Act only if there is a criminal investigation, inquiry or trial pending against him, which shall embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the scope of Sec. 51 of 1994 Act. It is next submitted that if the date of birth of the petitioner is to be considered as 9/9/1997, even then the petitioner is qualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch and no disqualification, as mentioned in Sec. 175 of 1994 Act, is attracted. It is also submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Panipat has passed the order in a hasty manner, which is not in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the learned Divisional Commissioner has erred in concluding that the petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 187(1)(h) of 1994 Act. It is still further submitted that while making the said observations, the learned Divisional Commissioner has failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Sec. 188 of 1994 Act, which state that the Court can take the cognizance of offence under Sec. 187(2)(b) of 1994 Act where a complaint is made by an order or under the authority of State Election Commission. In the instant case, no complaint, as envisaged under Sec. 187(2)(b) of 1994 Act, has been instituted against the petitioner by the State Election Commission nor any trial has taken place for convicting the petitioner under Sec. 336 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short 'BNS'). With the aforementioned submissions, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.