JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Through this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Megha Ram has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District in Election Petition No.57/2015 whereby, whilst accepting the election petition filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, the learned Tribunal set aside the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar, Panchayat Samiti Bilara and declared the election petitioner Shri Rajuram respondent No.3 herein, to be the elected for the said post. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided today itself. 4. At the outset, Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition urging that the petitioner has concealed material documents while presenting the writ petition and did not file all the exhibited documents on record and hence, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and should be dismissed on the solitary ground of concealment of material facts/documents. 5. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, upon being faced with this situation, urged that initially, the petitioner could not file the documents in question on record because the concerned Presiding Officer, while exhibiting the documents, failed to append signature thereupon. Hence, the petitioner was prevented from getting the copies promptly. After some persuasion, the petitioner could somehow, convince the registry of the Tribunal to get the signatures of the present Presiding Officer appended on the documents on 21.05.2018 and thereafter, the copies of the relevant documents were acquired and have been filed on record alongwith an additional affidavit of the petitioner. This submission of Shri Vishal Sharma is duly verified from the record. A perusal of the original exhibited documents from the record clearly indicates that the documents were exhibited way back in the year 2016-17 but the Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal, appears to have overlooked signing the same simultaneously upon which, the current Presiding Officer marked his signatures thereupon on 21.05.2018 (four days after the Judgment) with the note ‘Takmilan Hastakshar’. Thus, much significance cannot be attached to the fact that the writ petitioner herein did not submit all the exhibits on record alongwith the writ petition and thus preliminary objection raised by Dr. Acharya is turned down as untenable. 6. However, after arguing the matter on merits at some length, Shri Vishal Sharma, Advocate gave up the challenge to the impugned judgment to the extent, the Election Tribunal directed setting aside of the petitioner’s election as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, praying for an observation by this Court that the findings on merits recorded in the impugned Judgment may not prejudice the petitioner’s defences in the criminal trial. However, he vehemently assailed the direction given in the impugned judgment declaring the election petitioner Rajuram as elected upon the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar. Shri Vishal Sharma relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Prakash Khandre vs. Dr. Vijay Kumar Khandre & Ors., reported in (2002)5 SCC 568 and this Court’s Judgment in the case of Laxman Singh vs.Bhura Ram & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12013/2016) decided on 22.11.2017 and urged that admittedly, more than two candidates (including the petitioner and the respondent herein) contested the election in question and as such, it was impressible for the Election Tribunal to have declared the election petitioner elected upon the post of Sarpanch which fell vacant on account of setting aside of the election of the petitioner upon disqualification. He thus urges that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside to that extent and the concerned Election Officer is directed to hold a fresh election for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned. 7. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel representing the respondent Rajuram (election petitioner) vehemently opposed the said submission and urged that charge of post has already been handed over to the election petitioner (respondent No.3) and hence, this Court should not feel persuaded to interfere in the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record and the impugned judgment. 9. It is an admitted position as emanating from record that three persons including the petitioner and the respondent herein, contested the election held for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar on 01.02.2015. 8. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record and the impugned judgment. 9. It is an admitted position as emanating from record that three persons including the petitioner and the respondent herein, contested the election held for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar on 01.02.2015. The petitioner was declared elected whereas, the other two candidates including the election petitioner lost the election. The Election Tribunal, accepted the election petition filed by the respondent Rajuram (election petitioner) and holding the petitioner to be disqualified for the post, set aside his election on the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and simultaneously, declared the respondent as elected on the same post. This Court examined an identical controversy in the case of Laxman Singh (supra) and while placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Prakash Khandre (supra), the direction given by the Election Tribunal in the said case to declare the losing candidate (election petitioner) elected was set aside in these very circumstances. As the factual scenario is ad-idem, manifestly, the direction given by the Election Tribunal to declare the respondent Rajuram elected on the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned is contrary to law and hence, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is allowed in part. While affirming the disqualification of the petitioner for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar, Panchayat Samiti Bilara, the direction given by the Election Tribunal to declare the respondent Rajuram (election petitioner) elected on the said post is hereby quashed and set aside. It is clarified that the observations made and findings recorded in the impugned Judgments shall not be considered as prejudicing the petitioner’s valid defences in the corresponding criminal trial. 11. The District Election Officer -District Collector, Jodhpur is directed to approach the State Election Commission for conducting fresh election on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 expeditiously. It is expected that the State Election Commission shall get the fresh election conducted within a period of six months.