BAJRANG LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal is under Section 46 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act of 1959' hereinafter) against the judgment of the trial court dated 22. 8. 2005 passed in Election Petition No. 259/2005.

(3.) ON merits, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has committed serious error of law in holding that the appellant was disqualified for being chosen as Member of the Board under Section 26 (1-b) of the Act of 1959. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is is a case of no evidence and that the election petitioner did not appear in the witness box nor produced any evidence to prove their case against the appellant. It is also submitted that the election petitioner failed to plead sufficient material facts constituting any cause of action for getting the appellant declared disqualified under Section 26 (1-b) of the Act of 1959. It is submitted that the allegation is absolutely vague and further it is clear from the charge framed against the appellant in the criminal case that the court has not mentioned which of the order passed by any competent authority under Section 3 of the Act of 1955, has been violated by the appellant non- petitioner returned candidate. Under Section 3 of the Act of 1955, there are several clauses which empowers the Central Government to issue orders for control production, supply, distribution etc. Of essential commodities. The petitioners failed to produce any order of the Central Government, apart from the fact that he has not pleaded which of the order passed under Section 3 of the Act of 1955 has been violated by the appellant- non-petitioner. In absence of that it cannot be held that the appellant is facing trial of any offence for which punishment provided is for more than five years.