Quashed

Gopal Lal Meena v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2015CMS/74/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Writ Petition filed for quashing an order disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the Sarpanch election on grounds of having a third child. Relying on Smt. Sameera Bano, the Court held pre-election disqualification requires an election petition and ordered the impugned order quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.12.2014 declaring petitioner disqualified from contesting election is quashed and set aside; election petition must be decided on merits without influence from this order.

Gopal Lal Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

// 1 //

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.87/2015 With Stay Application No.74/2015

¶4

Gopal Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶5

Date of Order ::: 12.03.2015

¶6

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶7

Shri Satish Khandelwal, counsel for petitioner Dr. P.C. Jain and Shri Ritesh Jain, counsel for applicants ####

¶8

By the Court :-

¶9

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner for quashment of order dated 24.12.2014 and for direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to file nomination paper to contest the election of the office of Sarpanch.

¶10

It is contended that petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paparda, District Dausa in the election held in the month of January/February, 2005 and he took charge of the office as per the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. One Chiranji Lal filed an election petition challenging his election on the ground that petitioner was not qualified to contest the election as he was having more than two children as on 27.11.1995. The said election petition was dismissed by the court below on 27.01.2010 as having become infructuous on the ground that new election has already taken place and petitioner was not

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

elected again. However, earlier thereto, on the basis of complaint made by one defeated candidate Chiranji Lal, an enquiry was conducted by the respondents and without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, they proceeded to remove the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.9949/2005 before this court and therein an interim order was granted in favour of petitioner. Thereafter the controversy with regard to pre-election disqualification was resolved by a larger bench of this court in Smt. Sameera Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – WLC (Raj.) 2007 (2) 526, holding that the State Government has no right to conduct enquiry in the matter of pre-election disqualification and such election can be challenged only by filing election petition. The respondents, in view of interim order of this court in writ petition filed by petitioner and the larger bench judgment in Smt. Sameera Bano, ought to have dropped the proceedings of Section 39 against the petitioner, but they kept the matter pending and vide order dated 24.12.2014 declared the petitioner disqualified from contesting the election. Hence this writ petition.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for applicants and perused the material on record.

¶14

In view of judgment of the larger bench of this court in Smt. Sameera Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – WLC (Raj.) 2007 (2) 526, a duly elected office bearer of Panchayati Raj

¶15

// 3 //

¶16

Institution cannot be removed on the basis of preelection disqualification under the provisions of Section 39(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, for having third child born to him/her after the cutoff date and that this issue can be decided only by way of filing election petition.

¶17

This court, vide order dated 07.01.2015 while issuing notice to respondents, stayed operation of order dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure-2). Subsequently, this court, vide order dated 04.02.2015, while deciding application of applicant Smt. Manju Jain W/o Shri Prem Chand Jain filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with prayer that she may be impleaded as party respondent in writ petition because petitioner's wife on the basis of interim order passed by this court on 07.01.2015 has contested the election for the post of Sarpanch and got elected, clarified that writ petition would not come in the way of the civil court/election tribunal in adjudicating the election petition, if filed by the applicant on its own merits.

¶18

It is informed that election petition filed against petitioner was not decided on merits by the election tribunal but was dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶19

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that the impugned order would not form basis for unseating Rampati from the office of Sarpanch to which she has been duly

¶20

// 4 //

¶21

elected. The impugned order dated 24.12.2014 is quashed and set aside. However, the election petition may be decided by the concerned court/election tribunal without taking any influence from the order passed by this court, on its own merits especially when earlier election petition filed against her husband was not decided on merits.

¶22

With that direction, writ petition is disposed of. This also disposes of stay application as also the applications filed by applicants bearing inward no.4354 dated 22.01.2015 and no.3622 dated 02.02.2015.

¶23

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶24

//Jaiman//49

¶25

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶26

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Gopal Lal Meena v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Lal Meena v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanak Niwas Apartment Owners Vs State Urban Developmentors

Amar Chand Vs State Urban Developmentors

Ramkesh Meena Vs S B I and Anr.

Kishni and Anr. Vs State Urban Developmentors

Suresh @Susya Vs State Home Departmentors

Smt Lalita Devi Vs State Food and Civil Suppliesors