JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Draft amendment is allowed. 2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kaprada in Election Application No.6 of 2012, by which, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said election petition preferred by the petitioner which was preferred challenging the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch of Mota Pondha village. 3. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the petitioner herein and respondent No. 1 herein contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Mota Pondha village held on 29.12.2011. That in the said election respondent No. 1 has been declared elected as Sarpanch of the said village. That the petitioner preferred election petition in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Kaprada being Election Petition No.6 of 2012 challenging the election of respondent No. 1 as a Sarpanch inter alia submitting that as at the relevant time respondent No. 1 contested the election of the Sarpanch there were dues of electricity company of Rs. 39,179.65 and the same was suppressed by the respondent No. 1 in the nomination form/declaration/affidavit. It was further submitted that as there were electricity company dues which can be said to be semi Government dues and therefore, he was disqualified to become the Sarpanch in view of provision of Sections 28(2) and 30(1)(i) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was also the case on behalf of the petitioner that there was case pending against the respondent No. 1 of electricity theft and therefore, also he was disqualified to become the Sarpanch. The election petition was opposed by respondent No. 1 by submitting that as such there was no case against him. It was further submitted that as in the nomination form/declaration/affidavit there was no requirement to state facts of dues of electricity company and therefore, by not disclosing the same, it cannot be said that there was any suppression by him. It was submitted that as such there was no case of theft of electricity pending against him. It was further submitted that as in the nomination form/declaration/affidavit there was no requirement to state facts of dues of electricity company and therefore, by not disclosing the same, it cannot be said that there was any suppression by him. It was submitted that as such there was no case of theft of electricity pending against him. It was submitted that only after he has succeeded and won in the election, the petitioner has filed election petition with a mala fide intention and as an afterthought. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the election petition. 3.2. That by impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge has dismissed the election petition by holding that at the relevant time when respondent No. 1 contested the election, he cannot be said to be disqualified either under Sections 28(2) and 30(1)(i) of the Act as alleged by the petitioner. The learned Judge has also held that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was any case of theft of electricity pending against the respondent No. 1 at the time when he contested the election. 3.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the election petition, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri Adil Mirza, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in rejecting the election petition and holding that at the relevant time when respondent No. 1 contested the election there was no disqualification incurred by him. It is submitted that considering the fact that at the relevant time when respondent No. 1 contested the election though the amount of Rs. 39179.65 towards electricity bill of the electricity company was due and payable by respondent No. 1 and the same was not disclosed by him either in the nomination form and/or declaration and therefore, there was suppression of material facts and even otherwise considering Section 30(1)(i) of the Act as there were government/semi Government dues, he can be said to be disqualified to contest the election and/or to become the Sarpanch. It is submitted that even at the relevant time there was a case of theft of electricity pending against respondent No. 1 and therefore, also he was disqualified to become the Sarpanch. It is submitted that even at the relevant time there was a case of theft of electricity pending against respondent No. 1 and therefore, also he was disqualified to become the Sarpanch. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Judge has materially erred in dismissing the election petition. 5. Heard Shri Adil Mirza, learned advocate for the petitioner at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the election petition. 6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner filed election petition against respondent No. 1 challenging the election as Sarpanch of the Panchayat on the ground that at the relevant time when respondent No. 1 contested the election there was dues of electricity company it was not disclosed by respondent No. 1 in the declaration at the time of filling up the nomination and therefore, there was suppression of material facts and also on the ground that in view of Section 30(1)(i) of the Act he had rendered disqualification. It was also the case on behalf of the petitioner that as at the relevant time when respondent No. 1 contested the election on the post of Sarpanch a case of theft of electricity was pending against him and therefore, also he was disqualified. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the petitioner that in view of Sections 28(2) and 30(1)(i) of the Act, the respondent No. 1 was disqualified to become the Sarpanch and therefore, the learned Judge ought to have set aside the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch. 7. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, relevant provision of Gujarat Panchayat Act is required to be referred to. Section 30(1)(i) of the Act reads as under: Section 30(1): No person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such who (i). fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the panchayat or any panchayat subordinate thereto or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with Chapter X of this Act, within three months after a special notice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf has been served upon him; or 7.1. fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the panchayat or any panchayat subordinate thereto or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with Chapter X of this Act, within three months after a special notice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf has been served upon him; or 7.1. That on plain reading of the aforesaid provision of the Act, it can be said that if a person has failed to pay any arrears of any amount due by him to the panchayat or any panchayat subordinate to or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with Chapter X of the Act and within three months after a special notice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf has been served upon him, he can be said to be disqualified to become the member of Panchayat. The due of the electricity company cannot be said to be the dues of the panchayat and/or any panchayat subordinate thereto or any sum recoverable in accordance with Chapter X of the Act. Even in a case which falls under clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 30 even with respect to such dues of panchayat and/or sum recoverable in accordance with Chapter X of the Act, a special notice in accordance with the rules for recovery of such dues is required to be served and if within three months after such special notice served upon him, the dues are not paid then and then only there shall be disqualification under Section 30(1)(i) of the Act. In the present case, as stated above the dues of the electricity company does not fall under Section 30(1)(i) of the Act. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge has rightly held that the respondent No. 1 was not disqualified under Section 30(1)(i) of the Act because of the dues of the electricity company. 8. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in the declaration submitted by the respondent No. 1 at the time of filling up the nomination respondent No. 1 did not disclose that there was dues of the electricity company and therefore, he had suppressed the material facts is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. 8. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in the declaration submitted by the respondent No. 1 at the time of filling up the nomination respondent No. 1 did not disclose that there was dues of the electricity company and therefore, he had suppressed the material facts is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. On considering the declaration, which is required to be submitted along with nomination as per form No. 4, there is no such requirement of declaring with respect to dues of the electricity company. Under the circumstances, as such there was no suppression on the part of the respondent No. 1 if there was any such requirement and if respondent No. 1 had not disclosed then and then only it can be said that there was suppression of material facts. The things/particulars which are not required to be declared in the declaration/nomination form there may be any suppression if such particulars/facts are not disclosed. 9. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time there was a case of theft of electricity company against respondent No. 1 and therefore, the respondent No. 1 was disqualified is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such petitioner has failed to substantiate the same by leading the evidence that there was any case of theft of electricity pending against the respondent No. 1. The learned Judge has specifically given the finding that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the aforesaid by leading the evidence. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed any error and/or illegality in dismissing the election petition which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present petition which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.