Allowed

Kamal Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2018CW/11277/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an inquiry notice issued against an elected Sarpanch alleging pre-election disqualifications, relying on precedent that such disputes must be resolved via election petitions. The court clarified that fresh proceedings remain permissible if a competent criminal court frames serious charges against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 25.02.2015 proposing initiation of inquiry for pre-election disqualifications was quashed and set aside. Stay application was disposed of.

Kamal Singh Vs State and Ors. — Election Law | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11277/2015

Kamal Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None present. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AGC.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

03/10/2018

¶12

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶13

The petitioner herein is elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Mangta, Panchayat Samiti Dhorimanna, District Barmer. He has approached this Court through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the notice (Annexure-3) dated 25.02.2015 issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer seeking his explanation in regard to allegations constituting pre-election disqualifications. Evidently, the foundation of the impugned action is constituted by allegation of pre-election disqualification and such action can only be perpetrated by filing an election petition.

¶14

Manifestly, in view of the law laid down by this Court in a series of judgments including the one in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16070/2015 “Bhupendra Singh Hada Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” decided on 11.02.2016 , allegations

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-11277/2015]

¶17

constituting pre-election disqualification cannot be made the foundation of placing an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat under suspension or for initiation of inquiry by taking recourse of the powers conferred upon the State Authority by virtue of Section 38 of the Panchayati Raj Act.

¶18

In view of this admitted legal and factual position, the notice (Annexure-3) dated 25.02.2015 issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer proposing initiation of inquiry against the petitioner for allegations constituting purely pre-election disqualifications are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶19

However, it is clarified that in case, the competent criminal court frames charge against the petitioner for an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years and above, the competent authority shall be free to initiate fresh proceedings against him without being prejudiced by this decision.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed in these terms. Stay application is disposed of.

¶21

No order as to costs.

¶22

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶23

Tikam/124

Kamal Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh v. State and 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

Manveer Singh Vs State and Anr.

Mahendra Kumar Vs Central Bank of India

Narayan Swaroop Srivastava Vs State and Ors.

Prema Ram Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Rupi Devi Bheel and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insu Co. Ltd., Vs Bhiya Ram and Ors.