- (1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) This petition raises a question relating to the authority of the Returning Officer to accept the nomination paper of the respondent no.5 on the ground that firstly the respondent no.5 did not give the correct disclosure about his having been convicted in a criminal case where he has been punished for having committed an offence under Section 304 I.P.C, secondly, on account of such a punishment the respondent no.5 stands disqualified inherently as the conviction clearly involves moral turpitude.? The petitioner moved a representation even before the acceptance of the nomination papers on which inquiries were called upon to be held and there are communications to that effect which indicates that the respondent no.5 is on bail in an appeal before the High Court.? This is being disputed by the learned counsel for the Election Commission on the ground that this objection appears to have been raised after the acceptance of the nomination papers. Whatever be the position, the fact remains that the nomination papers of respondent no.5 have not been rejected and according to the petitioner, though being a disqualified person he is being allowed to contest the elections which violates the provisions of Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with relevant rules that have been framed in relation to the election of the Office of Gram Pradhan. We have considered the submissions raised. The elections have already been held on 28.11.2015 but the results have not been declared.
(3.) The writ petition ought to have been filed after elections and, therefore, at this stage it will not be appropriate for us to entertain the writ petition more so, when the result of the elections are likely to be declared very shortly. The question of disqualification to be raised directly in a writ petition has been dealt with by the Apex Court in several cases and has been considered in different decisions of this Court as well. This is coupled with the issue relating to a disqualification on account of the conviction of a returned candidate in an offence involving moral turpitude. The issue was dealt with in the case of Dhanai Vs State of U.P, 2010 109 RevDec 4324 and in the case of Meena Vs. State of U.P., 2010 111 RevDec 467 and has also been reflected upon by a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Bhageran Rai and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and Ors., 2005 AIR(Pat) 109 ;