LACHURAM Vs. INDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 6th July, 1965 passed against the appellant Lachuram in a writ application under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal are that in an election contest for the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Ajitgarh, appellant Lachuram and respondent No. 1 Inderlal stood as rival candidates. THE said election was held on 1. 1. 65 and Inderlal respondent was declared elected. Appellant Lachhuram thereupon filed an election-petition before the Election Tribunal (Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu) challenging the validity of the respondent's improper acceptance of nomination. It was alleged that he was not qualified for election as he was convicted on 13. 11. 62 by a competent Magistrate for an offence under sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act No. 37 of 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act', read with Rule 50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'central Rules', and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 11/ -. THE argument about disqualification was based on sec. 11 (g) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, which ran as follows - "sec. 11 - Qualification of Panchas - Every person, who is entitled to vote at an election in any panchayat circle or a ward thereof for purpose of this Act, shall be qualified for election or appointment as a Panch unless such person - (a) to (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g) has been convicted by a competent court of an offence involving moral turpitude. (h) to (m ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " THE respondent admitted his conviction and punishment as alleged by the appellant, but contested the election-petition on the ground that the offence of which he was convicted was a technical one and did not involve moral turpitude. After hearing lengthy arguments, the Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that the offence of which the respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude. It was observed by the Tribunal that the Act came into force on 1. 6. 55, that, according to Rule 50 (1) of the Central Rules, no person was permitted to sell certain articles of food except under a licence, that on 11. 2. 62 when the Food Inspector, Jhunjhunu District, inspected the respondent's shop, it was found that he was selling articles mentioned in the said Rule without a licence and, in its opinion, the very fact that the respondent was evading law for the last fifteen years showed that he had no respect for law and that the offence of which he was convicted involved moral turpitude. It, therefore, allowed the election petition and declared the respondent's election to be void. Aggrieved by this decision dated 5. 5. 65, the respondent filed a writ application under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court. THE learned single Judge, who heard the said writ petition, observed that the respondent did not appear to have intended to evade payment of licence fee, that he had applied for the renewal of his licence and deposited the fee for renewal before he was detected exhibiting certain articles for sale without a licence and that he was not to be blamed if action was not taken by the authorities on his application for renewal. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the offence of which the respondent was convicted did not involve moral turpitude. THE writ application was, therefore, allowed, the decision of the Election Tribunal was set aside and the election petition was dismissed. It is against this judgment dated 6. 7. 65 that the present appeal is directed.