Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Ghanshyam Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-03

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (the respondent No. 4) in Election Petition No. 08/2016 [W.P.(C) No. 5990 of 2016] and Election Petition No. 09/2016 [W.P.(C) No. 5993 of 2016] whereby the election result of the petitioner as a Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, District Godda, Jharkhand issued in Prapatra-22 (mentioned as Prapatra-21 in the impugned orders) has been cancelled and the Block Development Officer, Godda has been directed to take appropriate action under Section 125(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1951''). 2. The factual background of both the writ petitions are almost the same, as in both the writ petitions the respondent No. 6 has filed separate election petitions under Section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 2001''], however, for the sake of convenience, the fact of W.P.C No. 5990 of 2016 is being taken into consideration for deciding the present writ petitions. 3. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the State Election Commission, Jharkhand issued the notification for Panchayat Election on 22.10.2015 under the provisions of the Act, 2001 and the petitioner filed his nomination paper on 27.10.2015 for contesting the election of Mukhia from Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, Block-Godda, District-Godda for which the voting was held on 21.11.2015 and the result was declared on 13.12.2015. The petitioner was elected as a Mukhia of the said Gram Panchayat and thereafter a certificate was issued in Prapatra-22 by the Returning Officer, Godda. After declaration of the result, the respondent No. 6, namely, Shakil Ahmad of the same village who also contested the election and stood second in the election, filed an election petition being E.P No. 08/2016 in the Court of the respondent No. 4 on 04.01.2016 which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2016 whereby the election result of the petitioner issued in Prapatra-22 was cancelled and the Block Development Officer, Godda was directed to take appropriate action under Section 125 (a) of the Act, 1951. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition was not filed within 30 days from the date of the notification of the election and therefore the order of the respondent No. 4 is beyond jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition was not filed within 30 days from the date of the notification of the election and therefore the order of the respondent No. 4 is beyond jurisdiction. The respondent No. 4 was not competent to decide the election petition under Section 151(1) in view of specific bar under Section 151(2) of the Act, 2001 which specifically provides that the election petition shall not be entertained, unless it is filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. The election of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, District Godda, Jharkhand was notified on 22.10.2015, however, the election petition was filed on 04.01.2016. The learned Court below also misunderstood the settled principle of law provided in Section 19(1) of the Act, 2001 which clearly stipulates that if a person is convicted and a period of five years has lapsed since the date of conviction, he is eligible to contest the Panchayat election. The petitioner was convicted on 05.11.2009 in T.R. Case No. 889 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 323/348/380/34 IPC and from the date of conviction, 5 years period had already lapsed on 05.11.2014 and thereafter the petitioner was eligible for contesting the Panchayat election. The petitioner also preferred an appeal against his conviction and the same was clearly mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper for the Panchayat election to which no objection was raised by the respondent No. 6. Though an appeal was pending before the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Godda at the time of passing the impugned order, however, during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda set aside the judgment of conviction of the petitioner vide order/judgment dated 28.07.2017. Even if any discrepancy was found in the affidavit filed with the nomination paper, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of the election of the petitioner. If the returning officer (the respondent No. 5) after considering his affidavit filed with the nomination paper, decided that the petitioner was an eligible candidate, his candidature cannot be arbitrarily cancelled by the respodnent No. 4. If the returning officer (the respondent No. 5) after considering his affidavit filed with the nomination paper, decided that the petitioner was an eligible candidate, his candidature cannot be arbitrarily cancelled by the respodnent No. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Election Appeal Petition No. 01/2016 before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, however, vide the order dated 20.09.2016, the petitioner was directed to file a petition in the competent Court of law. Though the entire election process was conducted under the Act, 2001, however, the petitioner''s candidature was rejected and the election result was cancelled under the Act, 1951, which needs interference by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that if a candidate gets elected after suppressing the fact of his conviction, unless the factum of his disqualification is not known to the other candidates, they may not file an election petition within a period of 30 days. The respondent No. 4 was within his jurisdiction and competence to decide the matter, as the petitioner knowingly concealed his conviction in connection with T.R. Case No. 889 of 2009. Section 8(3) of the Act, 1951 clearly provides that a person convicted for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for further period of six years since the date of his release. If a person is convicted and the conviction along with the sentence awarded results in disqualification under sub-section (1) or (2) or (3) of Section 8 and if on appeal, the Higher Court has stayed the execution of sentence, the same will not have the effect of suspension of conviction and disqualification and will continue to be applicable in such cases. In the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 7 SCC 653 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the disqualification from the membership commences from the date of conviction and continues for a further period of six years. The petitioner has not completed five years from the date of his conviction. Moreover, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Sections 120 and 152 (1) of the Act, 2001 as well as Section 125(A) of the Act, 1951. 6. The petitioner has not completed five years from the date of his conviction. Moreover, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Sections 120 and 152 (1) of the Act, 2001 as well as Section 125(A) of the Act, 1951. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (the respondent No. 4) whereby the election of the petitioner as Mukhia of Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, District-Godda, Jharkhand has been cancelled. Before going into the merit of the cases, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of Act, 2001. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (the respondent No. 4) whereby the election of the petitioner as Mukhia of Gram Panchayat, Khatnai, District-Godda, Jharkhand has been cancelled. Before going into the merit of the cases, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of Act, 2001. " Section 19 - Disqualifications for being an Office bearer of a Gram Panchayat - No person shall be qualified for an Office bearer of the Gram Panchayat- (A) Who is not a citizen of India; (B) Either before commencement of this Act or thereafter- (1) Who has been convicted of any offence under the Civil Services Conduct Rules, (Civil Services Conduct Act) in force for the time being or under any law relating to use, consumption or sale of intoxicants or under any law in force for the time being in any part of the state unless a period of five years or such a lesser period as the State Government may determine in a particular case, has expired since the date of his conviction; (2) Who is a person of unsound mind and has been so declared by a competent court; (3) Who is a declared bankrupt; (4) Who holds a post of gain under any Panchayat or is in service in any other local authority or in any Co-operative Society or in the State Government or in Public Sector undertaking of the State Government or the Central Government; (5) Who has been removed from a post in service under the State Government or the Central Government or any Panchayat, any other authority or any Co-operative Society or any Public Sector undertaking of the Central or State Government on the ground of corruption or dereliction of duty; (6) Who holds any share or interest directly or indirectly in any contract entered into with or by the Panchayat or on behalf of that; Provided that no person shall be deemed disqualified under clause (6) of subsection (B) only because - a) He has a share in a Joint Stock Company, he has any share or interest in any such organisation or Co-operative Society registered under the State''s Society Registration Act in force for the time being which shall enter into a contract with the Panchayat or employed by or on behalf of the Panchayat; or b) He has a share or interest in any such newspaper in which any advertisement regarding activities of the Panchayat is given; or c) He holds a debenture by or on behalf of the Panchayat or is otherwise concerned with any loan taken by or on behalf of the Panchayat; (7) Who has been declared disqualified by or under any law, for the time being in force, for the purposes of election of the State Legislature; Provided that if a person has attained 21 years of age, he shall not be declared disqualified on the ground that his age is less than 25 years; (8) Who has, by any Criminal Court in India or abroad, been sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding six months or to penalty for an offence other than a political offence, been ordered to produce security against misbehaviour under section 109 or 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) and the order has not been reversed subsequently. Section 151 - Election Petition :- (1) An election held under this Act shall be called in question only by filing a petition in the prescribed manner and not otherwise, to - (i) The sub divisional officer in matters of a Gram Panchayat; (ii) The District magistrate/Deputy Commissioner in matters of a Panchayat Samiti; and (iii) The Divisional Commissioner in matters of a Zila Parishad. (2) No such petition shall be entertained unless it is filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be examined and disposed of according to the procedure, as may be prescribed. Section 152 - Grounds for declaring election to be void :- (1) Subject to sub-section (2), if the prescribed authority is of opinion- (a) That on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or (b) That any corrupt practice has been committed a returned candidate or his agent, or with the consent of a retuned candidate or his agent; or (c) That any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) That the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (1) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or order made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the prescribed Authority any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed Authority is satisfied- (a) That no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders and without the consent of the candidate; (b) That the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (C) That in all other respect the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; Then the prescribed authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis to the argument that the respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to entertain the application challenging the election of the petitioner since Section 151 of the Act, 2001 is meant for adjudication of election petitions filed by the aggrieved parties challenging the elections held under the Act, 2001. Learned counsel has referred to Rule 124 of the Rules, 2001 and has submitted that it is only the Munsif, who has jurisdiction to hear the matter. 8. On perusal of Section 151, it appears that any election held under the Act, 2001 can be called in question before the Sub-Divisional Officer, if the matter relates to a Gram Panchayat. In the present case also the matter relates to the Gram Panchayat. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present matter was entertainable before the concerned Munsif in view of Rule 124 of the Rules, 2001 as the same relates to the disqualification of the petitioner from the seat of Mukhia. The election of the petitioner was challenged both on the ground of disqualification as well as for adopting corrupt practice by submitting false affidavit at the time of nomination. The election of the petitioner was challenged both on the ground of disqualification as well as for adopting corrupt practice by submitting false affidavit at the time of nomination. So far as Rule 124 of Rules, 2001 is concerned, it is confined to the matter related to any question of disqualification of a member and under the said provision, the allegation of adopting corrupt practice by the petitioner was not entertainable and thus the same was rightly challenged under Section 151 of the Act, 2001 which is an exhaustive provision conferring power to the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear any question regarding the election of Gram Panchayat. The present dispute also relates to the election of the petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Officer (the respondent No. 4) had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and decide the same. Section 151 of the Act, 2001 does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear a matter in which election of any person is also challenged on the ground of disqualification. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disqualification for being an office bearer of a Gram Panchayat has been prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, 2001. The conditions for disqualification mentioned in Section 19 of the Act, 2001 do not include that if a candidate files a false affidavit, that would lead to his disqualification. 10. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467 has held as under:- "91. The purpose of referring to the instructions of the Election Commission is that the affidavit sworn by the candidate has to be put in public domain so that the electorate can know. If they know the half truth, as submits Mr. Salve, it is more dangerous, for the electorate is denied of the information which is within the special knowledge of the candidate. When something within special knowledge is not disclosed, it tantamounts to fraud, as has been held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath. While filing the nomination form, if the requisite information, as has been highlighted by us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not given, indubitably, there is an attempt to suppress, effort to misguide and keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably and undisputedly is undue influence and, therefore, amounts to corrupt practice. While filing the nomination form, if the requisite information, as has been highlighted by us, relating to criminal antecedents, is not given, indubitably, there is an attempt to suppress, effort to misguide and keep the people in dark. This attempt undeniably and undisputedly is undue influence and, therefore, amounts to corrupt practice. It is necessary to clarify here that if a candidate gives all the particulars and despite that he secures the votes that will be an informed, advised and free exercise of right by the electorate. That is why there is a distinction between a disqualification and the corrupt practice. In an election petition, the election petitioner is required to assert about the cases in which the successful candidate is involved as per the rules and how there has been nondisclosure in the affidavit. Once that is established, it would amount to corrupt practice. We repeat at the cost of repetition, it has to be determined in an election petition by the Election Tribunal." 11. In the aforesaid case it has been specifically held that if any candidate does not disclose the fact of his criminal antecedent at the time of filing of the nomination paper, it will amount to corrupt practice. 12. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 has held thus:- "46. To sum up the legal and constitutional position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion, it can be stated that: 1. The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the word "elections" is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces many steps. 2. The limitation on plenary character of power is when Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair election. In case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair election. The Constitution has taken care of leaving scope for exercise of residuary power by the Commission in its own right as a creature of the Constitution in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in a large democracy, as every contingency could not be foreseen or anticipated by the enacted laws or the rules. By issuing necessary directions, the Commission can fill the vacuum till there is legislation on the subject. In Kanhiya Lal Omar case the Court construed the expression "superintendence, direction and control" in Article 324(1) and held that a direction may mean an order issued to a particular individual or a precept which many may have to follow and it may be a specific or a general order and such phrase should be construed liberally empowering the Election Commission to issue such orders. 3. The word "elections" includes the entire process of election which consists of several stages and it embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the process of choosing a candidate. Fair election contemplates disclosure by the candidate of his past including the assets held by him so as to give a proper choice to the candidate according to his thinking and opinion. As stated earlier, in Common Cause case the Court dealt with a contention that elections in the country are fought with the help of money power which is gathered from black sources and once elected to power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money, which is used for retaining power and for re-election. If on an affidavit a candidate is required to disclose the assets held by him at the time of election, the voter can decide whether he could be re-elected even in case where he has collected tons of money. Presuming, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar, that this condition may not be much effective for breaking a vicious circle which has polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount would be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this would have its own effect as a step-in-aid and voters may not elect law-breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy may blossom. 4. Ashwani Kumar, that this condition may not be much effective for breaking a vicious circle which has polluted the basic democracy in the country as the amount would be unaccounted. Maybe true, still this would have its own effect as a step-in-aid and voters may not elect law-breakers as law-makers and some flowers of democracy may blossom. 4. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the political parties and this transparency in the process of election would include transparency of a candidate who seeks election or re-election. In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted. 5. The right to get information in democracy is recognised all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. At this stage, we would refer to Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is as under: "(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice." 6. On cumulative reading of a plethora of decisions of this Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to the executive to subserve public interest. 7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voter''s speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is a must. 7. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voter''s speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is a must. Voter''s (little man - citizen''s) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law-breakers as law-makers. 47. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are unjustified or beyond its jurisdiction. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of this matter, the said directions are modified as stated below. 48. The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature: (1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past - if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine. (2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law. If so, the details thereof. (3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants. (4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues. (5) The educational qualifications of the candidate. 13. In the aforesaid case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of speech and expression and as such the voter has every right to know about the criminal antecedent of a candidate to think over before making his choice of electing the law breakers. 13. In the aforesaid case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of speech and expression and as such the voter has every right to know about the criminal antecedent of a candidate to think over before making his choice of electing the law breakers. The Election Commission was further directed to call for an affidavit from a candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature regarding his criminal antecedent and also about his property. 14. Section 152 of the Act, 2001 speaks about the ground on which the election may be declared void. It provides that if the prescribed authority finds that the result of the election has been materially affected by the corrupt practice of the returned candidate or by improper acceptance of the nomination form, then the election shall be declared void. 15. In the present case, on bare perusal of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner at the time of filing of nomination form, it appears that under the heading ''whether the candidate has been convicted and sentenced for more than six months or fine by any Court of India or abroad, the petitioner declared ''NIL''. Further, in the column ''whether for the conviction and sentence any appeal is pending'', he declared ''NIL''. Though the petitioner has contended that the description of pendency of appeal was given in the affidavit, it appears that he had given description of one S.T Case i.e. S.T Case No. 287/2011 in the column ''following cases are pending against me in which cognizance has been taken''. Thus, it appears that the petitioner neither gave description of the Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2009 which was pending in the Court of Sessions nor provided the description of P.C.R Case No. 161 of 2009 in which he was convicted and sentenced for more than six months in the appropriate column. The petitioner''s action in not disclosing the fact of his conviction and pendency of appeal amounts to corrupt practice and for that reason, the Sub-Divisional Officer rightly cancelled his candidature as Mukhia. 16. The other contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the election petition under Section 151 of the Act, 2001 was filed after the statutory period of one month of the notification and thus the same was barred by limitation. 16. The other contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the election petition under Section 151 of the Act, 2001 was filed after the statutory period of one month of the notification and thus the same was barred by limitation. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Panchayat election was notified for Khatnai Panchayat, Godda Block on 22.10.2015 and the election petition was filed on 04.01.2016 which was beyond the statutory period of one month. I do not find any substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 151 provides that no election petition shall be entertained unless it is filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. However, sub-section (1) of Section 151 uses the phrase ''any election done under this Act'', which shows that the legislature intends to provide limitation from the date of notification of election result and not from the date of notification for conducting the election as the statute must be read as a whole and sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 151 cannot be read separately. The result of the petitioner''s election was notified on 13.12.2015 which would be the date of notification of the election for the purpose of Section 151(2) of the Act, 2001. Thereafter, the election petition was filed by the respondent No. 6 on 04.01.2016 which was within the stipulated time. The petitioner has misconstrued the provision that the date of notification for conducting the election was the date on which the election was notified and thus there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. It has further been contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner that from the date of conviction, a period of five years had already expired and thus in view of Section 19(B)(1), the petitioner was eligible to contest the election. 17. It has further been contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner that from the date of conviction, a period of five years had already expired and thus in view of Section 19(B)(1), the petitioner was eligible to contest the election. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State Election Commission, Jharkhand while referring to Section 19(B)(8) of the Act, 2001 has submitted that the said sub-clause clearly provides that no person shall be qualified for being an office bearer of the Gram Panchayat, if he is convicted by any criminal Court of India or abroad and sentenced to a period of six months and the order has not been reversed subsequently. The case of the petitioner comes under purview of Section 19(B)(8) and not Section 19(B)(1) of the Act, 2001. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State Election Commission, Jharkhand. Section 19(B)(8) of the Act, 2001 quite clearly provides that if any person has been sentenced for a period of six months by any criminal Court in India or abroad or has been directed to fill the bond under sections 109 or 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he is not entitled to be the officer of the Village Panchayat and the case of the petitioner fits to the said provision. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, he otherwise appears to be guilty of adopting corrupt practices by not disclosing the order of his conviction passed in T.R Case No. 889 of 2009 and also the pendency of appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Judge under the appropriate column of the affidavit submitted while filing his nomination paper in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamoorthy (Supra) and thus his election was liable to be cancelled under the provisions of Section 152 of the Act, 2001. 18. In view of the discussions made here in above and the judicial pronouncements, the present writ petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.