JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the order dated 05.01.2017 in connection with Case No.01 of 2016-2017 whereby and where under the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra, has cancelled the Membership of the Panchayat Samiti of the petitioner and the prayer has also been made to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was elected as a Member of Panchayat Samiti from Region No.IV, Chatra/3/Lawalong(4) as unopposed. The respondent No.6 submitted a letter to the respondent No.4 and the same was treated as an election petition and on the basis of the same, Case No.01 of 2016-2017 was registered by the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 cancelled the election of the petitioner, on the ground that he adopted corrupt practices, in terms of Section 152(1)(b) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. 4. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 154 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 defines corrupt practices which reads as under:- “Section 154:- Corrupt practices- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practice for the purposes of this Act- (i) Bribery as defined in clause (1) of section 123 of the representation of the people Act, 1951 (Central Act 48 of 1951) for the time being in force; (ii) Undue influence as defined in clause (2) of the said section for the time being in force; (iii) appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of or appeal to national symbols such as the nation flag or the national emblem, as the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate; (iv) Promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the election of that candidate to or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate; (v) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his agent or any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidature being statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate’s election. (vi) The hiring or fuelling, whether on payment or otherwise, any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with consent of a candidate or his agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for free conveyance of any voter (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided in accordance with the rules made under this Act; Provided that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or railway carriage by any voter at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or places fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause. Explanation- In this clause, the word vehicle means any ‘vehicle’ used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise whether used for the drawing of other vehicles or otherwise; (vii) The holding of any meeting at which intoxicating liquors are served; (viii) The issuing of any circular, placard or poster having reference to the election which does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof; (ix) Any other practice which the government by rule specify to be a corrupt practice. ” 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has concealed pendency of certain criminal cases against him. It is then submitted that not disclosing the pendency of the criminal cases against the petitioner when there was no requirement to file an affidavit along with the nomination paper, disclosing the criminal cases in which the petitioner being a candidate for the said election along the nomination paper as is required in case of election to the Parliament or Legislative Assembly; in the year 2015, when the petitioner submitted his nomination paper; cannot be termed as corrupt practice. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next fairly submits that the prayer (B) which is for issuance of an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as member of the Panchayat Samiti of the said Lawalong Panchayat has become infructuous. 7. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next fairly submits that the prayer (B) which is for issuance of an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as member of the Panchayat Samiti of the said Lawalong Panchayat has become infructuous. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint filed by the respondent No.6, cannot be treated as an election petition because the same do not fulfill the basic requirement of election petition as has been provided for in Rules-110 to 112 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001. It is then submitted that as per Rule-110 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001, the election petition must be filed within 30 days of declaration of the result of the election. It is also submitted that in this case, the petitioner was declared unopposed on 27.11.2015 but the complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Police was made on 06.01.2016; which is beyond the period of 30 days. It is next submitted that as there is no express order passed by the respondent No.4 in condoning the delay nor even any such prayer was ever made, to condone the delay in submission of the complaint by the Superintendent of Police; the respondent No.4 was not competent to entertain an application as election petition beyond the period of 30 days, of the petitioner being declared unopposed in the said election. It is also submitted that Rule-111 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 provides for payment of court-fee of Rs.200/- but the complaint of the Superintendent of Police was not filed with any court-fee; so, in the absence of any court-fee of Rs.200/- having been filed, the respondent No.4 has committed a grave illegality by entertaining the complaint of the respondent No.6 as an election petition. It is also submitted that Rule-112 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 mandates that the election petitions have to comply with the Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which includes verification of the contents of the election petition with an affidavit but even though the complaint filed by the Superintendent of Police is not supported by any affidavit hence the compliance of verification of pleadings, as is required under Order-VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been done. Hence, on this score also the respondent No.4 committed a grave illegality in entertaining the complaint as an election petition. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule- 113 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 envisages that the prescribed authority must adhere to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in hearing the election petition but in this case, neither the respondent No.4 settled any issue nor gave any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his evidence in his defence and without adhering to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent No.4 has arbitrarily passed the impugned order. It is also submitted that Rule- 115 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 requires adherence of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but even that has not been complied with by the respondent No.4 and on this score also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Civil) be allowed; except the prayer (B) which has become infructuous as already indicated above. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Shivakumar & Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467 , para-91 of which reads 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 v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ] . 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 non-disclosure 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.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that something within the special knowledge of the petitioner is not disclosed, tantamount to fraud and such attempt is undue influence and therefore, amounts to corrupt practices. Hence, even though the corrupt practices which has been defined in Section 154 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, does not include withholding information regarding criminal cases pending against a candidate in his affidavit along with the nomination paper, still, the same amounts to corrupt practice, in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Shivakumar & Others (supra). Shivakumar & Others (supra). It is then submitted that hence, no illegality has been committed by the respondent No.4 but the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the respondent No.4 ought to have adhered to the Rules- 110 to 113 & 115 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 as such rules are mandatory but it is submitted that since the tenure of the member of the Panchayat Samiti was for a period of five years and the same has already ended in the year 2020, the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a member of Panchayat Samiti of the said Lawalong Panchayat for his tenure of five years has become infructuous. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Civil), being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the prayer (B) made in this Writ Petition (Civil) for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a member of Panchayat Samiti of the said Lawalong Panchayat Election for which the election was held in the year 2015, has become infructuous as the period of five years is already over. So, this second prayer of the petitioner is rejected being infructuous. 11. So far as the first prayer of the petitioner regarding issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the order dated 05.01.2017 in connection with Case No.01 of 2016-2017 is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that though there is a mandatory requirement in Rule- 110 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 that election petition is to be filed within 30 days of the declaration of the election of the candidate and in this case, the petitioner was declared elected on 27.11.2015 but the complaint which was submitted by the respondent No.6 and which was treated as election petition, was made on 06.01.2016 i.e. beyond the period of 30 days, there is no any prayer for condonation of delay nor any express order for condoning the delay has been passed by the respondent No.4. 12. 12. Perusal of the Annexure-3-which has been treated as the election petition reveals that the same was not accompanied by the court-fee of Rs.200/- as is required in terms of Rule 111(2) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 and it is also revealed that the said complaint of the respondent No.6 has not complied with the Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure which relates to pleadings generally and also in Rule-15(4) of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, mandates the verification of the pleadings and furnishing affidavit in support pleadings. In the absence of these basic requirements as is required under Rule 110 to 112 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001, the respondent No.4 having entertained the complaint as an election petition; this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent No.4 has committed a grave illegality. 13. So far as the grounds of cancellation are concerned, Section 154 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 has categorically defined corrupt practices which has already been mentioned in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment. It is needless to say that withholding information about pendency of criminal cases against a candidate, has not been defined as one of the corrupt practices in the said Section 154. 14. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Shivakumar & Others (supra) is concerned, in the same it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; in the context of the circular issued by the Election Commission on 03.03.2014 to the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and Union Territories relating to affidavit to be filed by the candidates and dissemination thereof. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the nomination paper kept at Annexure-1 that none of the columns of the nomination paper provides for information regarding pendency of the cases instituted against the candidates, has to be mentioned and in the absence of any mandatory requirement, certainly no fault can be found with the petitioner even if the petitioner has not disclosed the same. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents to show that the circular dated 03.03.2014 as has been referred to in para-91 of the judgment in the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents to show that the circular dated 03.03.2014 as has been referred to in para-91 of the judgment in the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Shivakumar & Others (supra) was implemented in the State of Jharkhand. Be that as it may, this being a disputed questions of fact, this Court is not delving into the same, in exercise of its power under writ jurisdiction but keeping in view the fact, as already indicated above, the respondent No.4 has committed a grave illegality in not following the mandatory requirements as has been mentioned in Rules 110 to 113 as well as Rule 115 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001; as already discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed in connection with Case No.01 of 2016-2017 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra is not sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 05.01.2017 passed in connection with Case No.01 of 2016-2017 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra is quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this Writ Petition (Civil) is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.