SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner-Smt. Shahjad Bano, who is a lady Sarpanch, has challenged in this petition the passing of no confidence motion against her in the meeting held on 30. 9. 99 on several grounds. One of the main grounds is that the Addl. Chief Executive Officer was not competent and that the application was not moved in proper form. One more ground was raised in para No. 10 of the petition namely that some members were kidnapped and they were brought to the spot of meeting under police custody and the presiding officer himself has taken ballot papers and marked the same and put in the ballot box as per the his choice, thereby, the members were not allowed to cast their votes freely and voluntarily.
(2.) AT the time of commencement of hearing of this petition, learned Addl. Advocate General Shri R. L. Jangid appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection namely that the petitioner has made a deliberate false statement in para No. 10 of her petition. He, therefore, submitted that this petition should be dismissed straightway without going into the merits of the case only on this ground of making false statement on oath in the petition. Mr. Jangid pointed out the averments made in para No. 10 of the petition itself, which I would like to reproduce, which are as under:- ``it is again asserted in this writ petition that some members were kidnapped and they were brought to the spot of meeting under police custody and the presiding officer himself has taken the ballot papers and marked and put the same into the ballot box, as per his choice, thereby members were not freely and voluntarily allowed to cast their votes in the meeting. '' Mr. Jangid also pointed out from the application Annex. 3 dated 30. 9. 99 submitted by the petitioner herself immediately after voting was over and the no confidence motion passed against her that the statement made in para No. 10 of the petition is absolutely false and misleading the Court. The said application is in Hindi and relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- Ekuuh; mpp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ckotwn ihbklhu vf/kdkjh th mi[k. M vf/kdkjh th us er i= okmz iapksa dks fn;s ,d lkfk ns fn, mlh dejsa esa miljiap ds fo:) er i= ij fvd ekdz yxk;k ljkst ,oa ,d jkefuokl ,oa Jherh T;kuk ds er i= ij ljs vke [kqn vkseizdk'k miljiap us fvd ekdz yxk fn;k vksj mi[k. M vf/kdkjh ns[krs jgsa fqj mu er i=ksa dks lc ds lkeus ljiap dh ;kfu esjs ,oa lqjs'kpun okmz iap vksj gjukfk xksnkjk ds fojks/k djus ij Hkh mu er i=ksa dks lhkh dks [kqys vke fn[kk fn;k] fqj xqir ernku ds vkns'k dk D;k vksfpr; jgk** From the above statement made in the application at Annex. 3 dated 30. 9. 99 it is clear that the petitioner was preparing ground to challenge the passing of `no confidence motion' against her. Therefore, after voting was over she submitted an application in Hindi duly signed by her by making allegations against Up-Sarpanch. It is clear that, that application was submitted at the earliest point of time immediately after the passing of `no confidence motion' was over. However, for the reasons best known to her, she has completely given go-by to the immediate story narrated in the application at Annex. 3 and made serious allegation in the petition to the effect that some members were kidnapped and they were brought to the spot of meeting under police custody and the presiding officer himself has taken ballot papers and marked and put the same in the ballot box as per his choice. Thus, serious allegations were made against the presiding officer. If it was true then nothing could have prevented her from stating that fact in her application dated 30. 9. 99 (Annex. 3 ).
(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the averments made in para No. 10 of the petition cannot be said to be false or incorrect. He also submitted that even if some incorrect statement is made in the petition then the same should not come in the way of the petitioner to decide the matter on merits. He submitted that in this petition three most important questions of law are involved namely that; (i) the Addl. Chief Executive Officer was not competent, (ii) the application to pass `no confidence motion' against the petitioner was not in a proper form and (iii) the appointment of S. D. O. as Presiding Officer was also not proper. He, therefore, submitted that this Court should ignore such trivial preliminary objection raised by the other side and decide the matter on merits particularly when it is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by not only the Judgment of this Court but also by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that the petitioner was almost illiterate lady and, therefore, if she has submitted any such application at Annex. 3 it should not go against the petitioner. He also submitted that if some averments are made in para No. 10 of the petition because of mistake of Advocate then it should not go against the petitioner and the Court should do substantial justice and it should not throw out the petition on such a technical ground raised by other side. Mr. Joshi has given up the malafides attributed against the Presiding Officer in para No. 10 of the petition and submitted that he will restrict his arguments to the above three points which are purely questions of law. It is true that when the substantial justice is pitted out against the technical one then, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several judgments, the substantial justice should prevail. However, the law is equally well settled on the point that if a person does not come before the Court with clean hands or made some false statement in the petition with a view to get some order then such a person is not entitled for any relief even if he or she has got strong or good case on merits. ;