- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned Counsel representing respondent No.2.
(2.) An innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner for an appropriate direction to the District Magistrate, Unnao/respondent No.3 to take a decision on the pending application of the petitioner dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure - 7 to the petition) praying for taking an appropriate action against the elected Pradhan/respondent No.4 as he had not made correct and complete disclosure while filing his nomination papers, i.e., non-disclosure of pending criminal cases.
(3.) Sri Mishra, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishnamoorthy v. Siva Kumar and others, 2015 3 SCC 467, particularly paragraph 91 of the judgment and submitted that non-disclosure of relevant pending criminal cases has been held to be undue influence and would amount to corrupt practice and as such would be an issue triable by the Election Tribunal in an appropriate Election Petition. Further, Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that the petitioner can have a right to move an application to initiate proceedings under Section 5-A and 6-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, in case the Pradhan is convicted for any of the offences as referred to in the said provisions. However, as on date, it would be a futile exercise to issue any direction in the nature of Mandamus to the District Magistrate to decide the representation of the petitioner.;