LAXMAN MEENA Vs. LALURAM MEENA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, an elected sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jawar, Panchayat Samiti Girwa, District Udaipur, has called in question the order dated 20th February, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Udaipur (for short, 'Election Tribunal'), whereby the learned Election Tribunal allowed the election petition of first respondent and declared petitioner's election, as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, null and void and unseated him as Sarpanch.

(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that as per provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') election of ward panchas and Sarpanch in village Jawar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur was conducted on 4th of February, 2010. For the post of Sarpanch, in all seven persons were in fray including the petitioner. After completion of election, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch. Election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was challenged by way of an election petition by the first respondent. In the election petition, the first respondent has precisely urged that the petitioner was not eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch, but the said objection of the respondent was not entertained by the Returning Officer and he has wrongfully accepted the nomination form of the petitioner. As per the respondent, at the time of contesting the election, the petitioner owed a sum of Rs.95,000/- + Rs.77,774.50 to Gram Panchayat, which was due prior to year 2005-06, but the said amount was not deposited by the petitioner at the time of contesting the election and, as such, he has incurred disqualification to contest the election in terms of Section 19(i) and (m) of the Act of 1994. While questioning the action of the Returning Officer for wrongful acceptance of the nomination paper of the petitioner, the respondent has also stated in the election petition that despite a huge amount of Gram Panchayat outstanding against the petitioner, he furnished false declaration in his nomination paper that he has not incurred any disqualification as specified under Section 19 of the Act of 1994 in compliance of Rules 25 and 58 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (for short, 'Rules of 1994').

(3.) The election petition was contested by the petitioner and a reply was submitted denying the allegations contained therein. The petitioner has specifically averred in the reply that the State Government through Collector has declared the list of candidates, who were defaulter in payment of outstanding amount of Panchayati Raj Institutions, wherein the petitioner's name was not included, and therefore, he has not incurred any disqualification to contest the election of Panchayati Raj Institutions. Taking preliminary objection about noncompliance of Section 43 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994, the petitioner has resisted the election petition. The petitioner has also specifically pleaded that, for the alleged outstanding amount, no notice whatsoever was ever given to him by the Panchayati Raj Institution and, at the time of submission of nomination form, the petitioner has also enclosed no dues certificate issued by the competent authority of the Panchayati Raj Institution. With this stand, in the reply, the petitioner has prayed for rejection of election petition. The other parties to the election petition also filed their written statements. The learned Election Tribunal on the basis of pleadings framed the issues and the respective parties led their evidence. After conclusion of evidence, the learned court below examined the matter and recorded a categorical finding that in the audit report of the year 2005-06, there is a clear stipulation that a sum of Rs.95,000/- + Rs.77,774.50 has not been properly accounted for by the petitioner as Sarpanch at the relevant point of time and the said amount is still outstanding against him. Admittedly, the said amount was withdrawn by the petitioner as imprest, but no accounts were furnished, nor the amount was re-deposited within the period of three months. Therefore, taking cognizance of the conduct of the petitioner, the learned Court below has found that as huge amount was outstanding against the petitioner of the Panchayati Raj Institution, he has incurred disqualification to contest the election of Sarpanch. The learned Tribunal has also found that by keeping that amount, which was taken as advance by the petitioner, he has committed an act of misappropriation of the fund of Panchayati Raj Institution, and therefore, no charitable view can be taken against an individual, who was involved in serious act of defalcation. Thus, the learned Tribunal finally recorded its conclusion that at the time of contesting the election, the petitioner has incurred disqualification within the four corners of Sections 19(i) and (m) of the Act of 1994 and consequently uprooted him as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jawar, Panchayat Samiti Girwa, District Udaipur.