Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1841 (RAJ)

Pramod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-17

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.11.14 passed by the Returning Officer, whereby the petitioner's nomination for election as Member from Ward No. 44 of Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar, stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that vide public notice dated 7.11.14, the Returning Officer invited nomination of candidates for election of Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar. The complete Schedule of the election was notified. The petitioner filed his nomination in Form III as a candidate for Ward No. 44 of Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar. In Part II of the declaration attached to the nomination form, the petitioner disclosed that a criminal case for offence under Sections 341, 325, 147 and 149 IPC is registered against him, which is pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar. According to the petitioner, after due scrutiny the nomination form of the petitioner was accepted, however, later in absence of the petitioner, the Returning Officer made changes in the earlier order and rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that since the cognizance has been taken by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period of five years and the charges have also been framed, the petitioner is disqualified to contest the election in terms of provisions of Section 24(iii) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short "the Act of 2009"). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the nomination form of the petitioner having been accepted, the order could not have been reviewed by the Returning Officer on any ground whatsoever. Learned counsel submitted that as per the mandate of Rule 13 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994, the Returning Officer is required to hold a summary inquiry and only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the candidate, the nomination can be rejected as invalid. Learned counsel submitted that merely pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for rejection of the nomination form. However, the correctness of the declaration made in the relevant column of the declaration form attached to the nomination form, is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this court. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. However, the correctness of the declaration made in the relevant column of the declaration form attached to the nomination form, is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this court. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 5. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Returning Officer has made changes in the order and rejected the nomination form of the petitioner already accepted. A perusal of the decision of the Returning Officer as contained in Part V of the nomination form reveals that while rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner, it is mentioned therein that the detailed decision is recorded on the back of the page separately. A perusal of the order passed by the Returning Officer available on record reveals that nomination of the petitioner has been rejected inasmuch as, as per the declaration made by the petitioner in Part II of the declaration form, the court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 147 and 149 IPC and charges have also been framed against him. It is to be noticed that the offence under Section 325 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven years and therefore, in terms of clause (iii) of Section 24 of the Act of 2009, the petitioner being disqualified to contest the election, his nomination has been rejected. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court that the petitioner is facing the trial before the court of competent jurisdiction for offences inter alia under Section 325 IPC. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration made by the petitioner as aforesaid, the order impugned passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Section 24(iii) of the Act of 2009, cannot be faulted with. 6. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******