BUDDHA PITAI Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER MALIHABAD
LAWS(ALL)-1965-10-2
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on October 19,1965

BUDDHA PITAI Appellant
VERSUS
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER MALIHABAD Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

AIJAZ AHMAD VS. NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-1975-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO GOVIND SINGH RAM SINGH VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CS CRPF AND THE PRINCIPAL C R P F [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSING RANGARAO RAUT VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-1979-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD HANIF VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL REGIONAL DIRECTOR AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-1980-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
SHERSINGH S O HIRASINGH FAUJI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
A PADMANABHAN VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-174] [REFERRED TO]
LACHURAM VS. INDERLAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH GHATIWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR NATH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-2-89] [REFERRED]
TAMIZHAZHAGAN AND ANR. VS. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
CHITRA SINGH VS. SARVA U.P.GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-831] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an appeal from a judgment of Misra, J. dismissing the appellant's petition for certiorari for the quashing of an order passed by an Additional Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 25 of the Panchayat Raj Rules the election of the appellant to the office of Pradhan of A Gaon Sabha. This special appeal came up for hearing befofe two of us who referred it to a larger bench because of certain questions of importance involved in it.
(2.)THE appellant was convicted on 27-7-82 under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and fined Rs. 100/ -. He had been found guilty of mixing a prohibited colour in sweets sold to a customer. Subsequently he, Naumi Lal respondent No. 2 and two others, who are respondents 3 and 4 contested election for the office of Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha and the appellant was declared elected as Pradhan. Naumi Lal filed a petition under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act questioning the election on the ground that the appellant was disqualified for being chosen or nominated or for holding any office in a Gaon Sabha on account of his being convicted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 27-7-62. Under Section 5-A of the Act a person is disqualified for being chosen or nominated or for holding any office in a Gaon Sabha if he " (h) has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. " The contention of the respondent was that the offence of Section 18 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is an offence involving moral turpitude and that the appellant's nomination was improperly accepted because he was disqualified for being chosen or nominated or for holding any office in a Gaon Sabha. Under Section 12-C the election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha can be called in question on the ground that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the contentions of the respondent and held that the offence of Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is an offence involving moral turpitude, that the appellant was consequently disqualified for being nominated and for holding any office in a Gaon Sabha, that his nomination was, therefore, improperly accepted and that the result of the election was affected by the improper acceptance. He allowed the respondent's petition and set aside the appellant's election and directed the District Magistrate to take steps to fill up the vacancy of Pradhan in the Gaon Sabha.
(3.)THE appellant applied for certiorari for the quashing of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer's order on the ground that the offence of Section 18 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is not an offence involving moral turpitude. Our brother Misra did not agree and refused certiorari.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.